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 i3-6300 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£60PassMark multi-core score:4351N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):51 W

Intel Core i3-6300 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 i3-6300
5.3/10

Overall score

Score
5.3/ 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 92% of models
Score components

40%

4.3

Technical score

25%

4.3

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 92% of processors
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 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 83% of models
Score components

70%

5.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 83%
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 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 78% of models
Score components

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

4.4

Architecture

10%

5.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 78%
4.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.3/ 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 85% of models

4.3

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.5

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 85%
?

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-i3-6300
intel-core-i3-6300
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 i3-6300

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 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 78% of models
Score components:

60%

3.4

Performance

18%

4.4

Architecture

10%

5.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.9

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

4.3
Reviews score
4.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 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 83% of models
Score components:

70%

5.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.7
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1151
This processor uses the LGA1151 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 9% of processors.
Chipset
?
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
?
CPU boost clock speed
N/A
CPU base clock speed
2x 3.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x3.8 GHz which is lower than that of 76.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,351
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 4,351 in PassMark, which is lower than 76.4% 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
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% 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
This processor supports DDR DDR3L/DDR4, which is older than that of 78.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% 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
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 530
This processor uses the Intel HD Graphics 530 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 76.2% of processors and equal to that in 2.2% 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
350 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 350 MHz which is higher than that of 42.7% of processors and equal to that of 25.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decod
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
51 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 51 W which is higher than that of 59.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
51 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 51 W which is higher than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
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 i3-6300 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 11.53x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (3,922.6 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    3,922.6 vs 340.075
  • 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
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 4.17x cheaper
    Intel Core i3-6300 is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 15.3% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (150 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    150 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 4.17x cheaper
    Intel Core i3-6300 is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 11.53x faster classroom rendering
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (3,922.6 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    3,922.6 vs 340.075
  • 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
  • 10 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (38 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    38 vs 28
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 15.3% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (150 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    150 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 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
  • 75.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,270 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,270 vs 5,209
  • 35.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 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 85% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    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.
    4.3 vs 6.7
  • 62.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,351 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,351 vs 11,469
  • 54.7% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,271 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,271 vs 2,804.5
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 35.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.3/ 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 85% of models

    4.3

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    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.
    4.3 vs 6.7
  • 8.1% worse value for money
    Intel Core i3-6300 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.74 vs 7.3).
    6.74 vs 7.29
  • 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
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 75.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,270 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,270 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • 62.1% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,351 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,351 vs 11,469
  • 54.7% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,271 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,271 vs 2,804.5
  • 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
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x3.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 17.8% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,262 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,262 vs 1,535
  • 11.1% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,273 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,273 vs 2,558
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 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 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
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 71.7% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    1.4 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Older DDR support
    This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decod 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), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), VC-1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decod 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 530 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Intel HD Graphics 530 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.

Video reviews

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

9.0
BPS Customs
≈ estimated
12/08/2016
Benchmark review · gaming tests against the i5 and i3
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-6300 is a strong budget choice for gaming, letting you save on the CPU and motherboard, though it is weak for CPU-heavy work.
5.0
GECID Benchmarks
≈ estimated
20/03/2016
Hands-on review · benchmarks, power use and overclocking tests
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-6300 is not the best pick at its launch price, as the i5-6400 and FX-8320 offer more for similar money.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

tweakers.net
08/08/2016
Not graded yet

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-6300

  • High base clock speed of 3.8 GHz provides snappy performance for daily tasks like web browsing and office work.
  • Strong single-thread performance makes it surprisingly capable for budget gaming in titles that don't require many cores.
  • Excellent energy efficiency with a low TDP of 51W, leading to cool operation even with stock cooling.
  • Supports DDR4 memory, offering a more modern platform compared to previous generations at its release.
  • Hyper-threading technology allows for 4 virtual cores, helping with multitasking and basic workstation applications.

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-6300

  • Poor value proposition compared to the i3-6100, as the 100MHz speed bump often didn't justify the significant price premium.
  • Only a dual-core processor, which causes stuttering or failure to launch in modern, core-intensive AAA games.
  • Locked multiplier prevents overclocking, limiting the performance ceiling for enthusiasts.
  • Integrated graphics (HD 530) lag behind contemporary AMD APU rivals in gaming performance.
  • Quickly became obsolete for heavy tasks like video editing or streaming, which easily saturate its limited thread count.

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-6300 is a 6th-generation Skylake desktop processor built on a 14nm process, featuring 2 physical cores and 4 threads via Hyper-Threading technology. It operates at a high base clock speed of 3.8 GHz with a 4 MB Smart Cache and a thermal design power (TDP) of 51W, supporting both DDR4-2133 and DDR3L-1600 memory. Key advantages include strong single-core performance for its class, integrated Intel HD Graphics 530 capable of 4K support, and lower power consumption compared to older quad-core models. However, it lacks Turbo Boost functionality, and its dual-core architecture increasingly struggles with modern, heavily multithreaded applications and intensive gaming when compared to newer quad-core or hexa-core alternatives.

Compare Intel Core i3-6300 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 i3-6300 and other processors

No results found