OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i3-3110M review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£25PassMark multi-core score:1653N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:?CPU socket:FCPGA988TDP (Thermal design power):35 W

Intel Core i3-3110M Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i3-3110M
5.1/10

Overall score

Score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

40%

3.8

Technical score

25%

3.8

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 96% of processors
6.5

Value for money

Value for money
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 88%
3.8

Technical score

Technical score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

60%

3.2

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

3.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.6

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 90%
3.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models

3.8

Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.3

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 94%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-i3-3110m
  • intel-core-i3-3110m
intel-core-i3-3110m
intel-core-i3-3110m
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-3110M

Technical score
Technical score
3.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components:

60%

3.2

Performance

18%

4.1

Architecture

10%

3.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.6

Power & Thermal

4%

7.0

Platform

1%

6.6

Integrated graphics

3.8
Reviews score
3.8
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components:

70%

5.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.5
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FCPGA988
This processor uses the FCPGA988 CPU socket, which is older than that of 64.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.8% of processors.
Chipset
QM77, QS77, HM77, HM76, HM75
This processor supports QM77, QS77, HM77, HM76, HM75 chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 53.7% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C instruction sets, which is narrower support than 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
?
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.4 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.4 GHz which is lower than that of 89.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.3% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
1,653
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 1,653 in PassMark, which is lower than 96.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
22 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 22 nm process node, which is older than that of 85% of processors and equal to that of 9.6% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 22 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 22 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 84.9% of processors and equal to that of 9.8% of processors.
L3 cache
3 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 3 MB which is smaller than that of 85.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.4% of processors.
L2 cache
0.5 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 0.5 MB which is smaller than that of 85.4% of processors and equal to that of 14.5% of processors.
L1 cache
128 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 128 KB which is smaller than that of 83.9% of processors and equal to that of 14.3% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3, which is older than that of 86.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.3% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
1,600 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 1,600 MHz, which is lower than that of 87.7% of processors and equal to 10.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR3-1600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR3-1600 MHz, which is lower than that of 89.1% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 4000
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 4000 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 67.7% of processors and equal to that in 2.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
16
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 16 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 56.5% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
650 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 650 MHz which is higher than that of 80.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.5% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 79.5% of processors and equal to 3.4% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 14% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
35 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 35 W which is lower than that of 53.3% of processors and equal to that of 14.1% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
44 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 44 W which is lower than that of 73.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

Intel Core i3-3110M vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 6.69x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,274.8 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,274.84 vs 340.075
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C
  • 33.3% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (118 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    118 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.8% faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (664 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    663.97 vs 398.015
  • 31.3% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (44 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    44 W vs 64 W
  • 10x cheaper
    Intel Core i3-3110M is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    650 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 10x cheaper
    Intel Core i3-3110M is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • 6.69x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (2,274.8 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    2,274.84 vs 340.075
  • 66.8% faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (664 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    663.97 vs 398.015
  • 33.3% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (118 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    118 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 85.7% higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (650 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    650 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 10 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C
  • 31.3% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (44 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    44 W vs 64 W
  • 22.2% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (35 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    35 W vs 45 W
  • 92.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (391 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    391 vs 5,209
  • 85.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,653 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,653 vs 11,469
  • 43.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.8/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models

    3.8

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.8 vs 6.7
  • 51.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,232 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,232 vs 2,558
  • 74.5% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (391 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    391 vs 1,535
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 83.3% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 43.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.8/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models

    3.8

    Mark 7.1 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.8 vs 6.7
  • 11.4% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3-3110M has worse value for money than the average processor (6.54 vs 7.3).
    6.54 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, F16C vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 8 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2012 vs 2020).
    June 2012
    2012 vs 2020
  • 92.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (391 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    391 vs 5,209
  • 85.6% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,653 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    1,653 vs 11,469
  • 51.8% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,232 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,232 vs 2,558
  • 74.5% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (391 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    391 vs 1,535
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x2.4 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 83.3% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (22 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    22 nm vs 12 nm
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    0.5 MB vs 3 MB
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Ivy Bridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 66.7% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (3 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    3 MB vs 9 MB
  • 66.7% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (128 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    128 KB vs 384 KB
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Less advanced foundry
    This processor uses a less advanced foundry process than the average processor (Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    Intel 22 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 50% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    1,600 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 45.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    25.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3 vs DDR4
  • Older PCIe version
    This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR3-1600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR3-1,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • Inferior integrated GPU
    This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 4000 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 4,000 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 10 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (90 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    90 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

4.0
TecnoCrux
≈ estimated
02/10/2020
Gaming test · GTA V performance, FPS and temperatures
Verdict
Intel Core i3-3110M is a poor choice for a notebook, though it copes with browsing and light games.
8.0
Videos That Don't Belong Elsewhere
≈ estimated
04/12/2018
Hands-on review · everyday tasks, browser test and boot time
Verdict
Intel Core i3-3110M handles browsing and office work well, but content creation needs a faster chip.
Overview video
Overview video
Overview video
Overview video
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-3110M

  • Capable of handling basic daily tasks like web browsing, word processing, and email
  • Supports multitasking better than contemporary Pentium and Celeron chips due to Hyper-Threading (2 cores, 4 threads)
  • Can run older or lightweight professional software such as CAD versions up to 2019 and MATLAB
  • Often found in laptops that allow for easy RAM and storage (SSD) upgrades to extend system life
  • Integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000 is sufficient for older games (pre-2015) and 1080p video playback
  • Relatively energy-efficient with a 35W TDP, making it suitable for smaller notebook designs

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-3110M

  • Outdated Ivy Bridge architecture that is no longer competitive with modern processors
  • Lacks Intel Turbo Boost technology, limiting its peak performance under heavy loads
  • Struggles with modern, demanding applications like recent AAA games, 4K video, or heavy IDEs like Android Studio
  • Commonly associated with heat issues in certain laptop chassis, leading to high temperatures on keyboards
  • Limited memory support, typically capping out at 16GB of older DDR3 RAM
  • Integrated graphics lack support for newer DirectX 12 features required by modern software

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-3110M is a dual-core mobile processor from the Ivy Bridge generation, featuring a 2.4 GHz base clock speed, 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, and a 3 MB L3 cache. Built on a 22nm lithography with a 35W TDP, it includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000 and supports up to 32 GB of DDR3/L-1600 memory. Main pros include its energy efficiency for the time, support for high-speed RAM (up to 1600 MHz), and the inclusion of AVX and Quick Sync technologies for better media performance. However, notable cons include the lack of Turbo Boost technology, which prevents it from increasing clock speeds under load, and its lack of support for AES New Instructions, which can limit encryption performance.

Compare Intel Core i3-3110M with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i3-3110M and other processors

No results found