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 i3-6100U review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£230PassMark multi-core score:2627N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1356TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i3-6100U 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.

5.0/10

Overall score

Score
5.0/ 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 95% of models
Score components

40%

4.0

Technical score

25%

4.0

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 95% of processors
6.3

Value for money

Value for money
6.3/ 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 91% of models
Score components

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

9.3

Price

â–¼Worse than 91%
4.0

Technical score

Technical score
4.0/ 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 86% of models
Score components

60%

3.0

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

4.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 86%
4.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.0/ 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 92% of models

4.0

Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.4

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 92%
?

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
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £230
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 i3-6100U

Technical score
Technical score
4.0/ 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 86% of models
Score components:

60%

3.0

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

4.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated graphics

4.0
Reviews score
4.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 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 91% of models
Score components:

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

9.3

Price

6.3
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
FCBGA1356
This processor uses the FCBGA1356 CPU socket, which is older than that of 88.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Chipset
Intel 100 Series
This processor supports Intel 100 Series chipsets, which is narrower compatibility than 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.5% 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, AVX2, FMA3, AES
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES instruction sets, which is narrower support than 60.1% of processors and equal to that of 3.8% 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
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.3 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.3 GHz which is lower than that of 91% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
2,627
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 2,627 in PassMark, which is lower than 89% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% 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
DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3, which is older than that of 75.3% of processors and equal to that of 3.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 76.4% of processors and equal to 8.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2133 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2133 MHz, which is lower than that of 78.8% of processors and equal to 5.5% 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 520
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 520 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 78.5% of processors and equal to that in 0.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.1% of processors and equal to 20.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 57% of processors and equal to 0.2% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
25 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 25 W which is lower than that of 84.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.2% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 7.5 W
Show more

Intel Core i3-6100U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.69x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,469.1 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,469.12 vs 398.015
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 44.1% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (99 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    99 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 60.9% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    25 W vs 64 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 3.69x faster Blender rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (1,469.1 vs 398). The average processor needs 398.015 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    1,469.12 vs 398.015
  • 44.1% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (99 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    99 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 60.9% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (25 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    25 W vs 64 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 85.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (755 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    755 vs 5,209
  • 77.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,627 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,627 vs 11,469
  • 40.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.0/ 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 92% of models

    4.0

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    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.
    4.0 vs 6.7
  • 48.4% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,321 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,321 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 50.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (753 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    753 vs 1,535
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x2.3 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
  • 40.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.0/ 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 92% of models

    4.0

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    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.
    4.0 vs 6.7
  • 14.7% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3-6100U has worse value for money than the average processor (6.28 vs 7.2).
    6.28 vs 7.2
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES 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, AVX2, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 5 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2015 vs 2020).
    September 2015
    2015 vs 2020
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1356 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1356 vs FP5
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 85.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (755 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    755 vs 5,209
  • 77.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (2,627 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    2,627 vs 11,469
  • 48.4% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,321 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,321 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 50.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (753 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    753 vs 1,535
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x2.3 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.
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 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
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 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 microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Skylake vs Kaby Lake).
    Skylake vs Kaby Lake
  • 33.3% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,133 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 27.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (34.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    34.1 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2133 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,133 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode), JPEG (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 520 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 520 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630

Video reviews

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

7.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
18/07/2021
Hands-on review · 14 games tested on integrated graphics
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-6100U is fine for basic browsing and Windows tasks, but its integrated graphics are too weak for serious gaming.
6.0
Brue Computing
≈ estimated
23/10/2016
Benchmark comparison · Cinebench R15 against the i3-7100U
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-6100U is only slightly faster than the newer Kaby Lake chip, so there is no reason to upgrade.
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-6100U

  • Sufficient performance for daily office tasks, web browsing, and multimedia purposes
  • Excellent energy efficiency with low power consumption (15W TDP), suitable for ultrabooks and long battery life
  • Capable of light multitasking and running basic PC applications smoothly
  • Features Hyper-Threading (2 cores, 4 threads), making it faster than many older dual-core processors
  • Remains a reliable and affordable budget-friendly option for students and home users

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-6100U

  • Weak integrated graphics (HD Graphics 520) that struggle with modern or high-end games even at medium settings
  • Low raw performance for demanding workloads like 3D rendering, video editing, or workstation simulations
  • Lacks Intel's Turbo Boost technology, meaning it cannot dynamically increase its clock speed under load
  • Obsolescence for current 2026 standards, as it is a 6th-generation processor on an aging platform
  • Performance heavily depends on having at least 8GB of RAM; 4GB can lead to significant slowdowns

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-6100U is a 6th Generation 'Skylake' dual-core mobile processor designed for thin-and-light notebooks, featuring a base clock speed of 2.3 GHz, 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, and a 3 MB Smart Cache. Its main advantages include high energy efficiency with a 15W TDP (configurable down to 7.5W), support for modern DDR4-2133 memory, and integrated Intel HD Graphics 520 that handles 4K video playback at 60Hz. However, its primary drawbacks are the lack of Turbo Boost technology, which limits peak performance under heavy loads, and its dual-core architecture which struggles with modern gaming or intensive multi-threaded tasks like video editing.

Compare Intel Core i3-6100U 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 i3-6100U and other processors

No results found