Name: Intel Core i3 7100T
Brand: Intel

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3 7100T

4.3

Hide

Platform

7.5

Hide

Brand name

Intel

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Performance

2.8

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

Threads per core

CPU boost clock speed

N/A

CPU base clock speed

Cache & Architecture

4.6

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Memory & PCIe

4.9

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

N/A

Maximum memory capacity

Integrated Graphics

6.7

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

Integrated GPU execution units

Integrated GPU base frequency

Integrated media encoders/decoders

Power & Thermal

8.4

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

Tau (power duration limit)

N/A

Configurable TDP

Intel Core i3 7100T vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i3 7100T better than the average processor?

Hide

Includes stock cooler
Cooler included
yes
▲ Better than 74% of models
This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
8 °C lower CPU temperature
CPU temperature
92 °C
★ Better than 91% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (92 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
92 °C vs 100 °C
80.9% faster Blender rendering
Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
701.43
▲ Better than 75% of models
Market range: <97 – >1.3k
This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (701.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
701.43 vs 387.66
Supports ECC memory
ECC memory support
yes
▲ Better than 68% of models
This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
28.8% smaller die size
Die size
126 mm²
▲ Better than 70% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
126 mm² vs 177 mm²
27.78x cheaper
Intel Core i3 7100T is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
£9 vs £250
4.14x more popular
Intel Core i3 7100T is more popular than the average processor (4.14 vs 1).
4.14 vs 1
Modern CPU socket
CPU socket
LGA1151
▲ Better than 61% of models
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP4).
LGA1151 vs FP4

27.78x cheaper
Intel Core i3 7100T is cheaper than the average processor (£9 vs £250).
£9 vs £250
4.14x more popular
Intel Core i3 7100T is more popular than the average processor (4.14 vs 1).
4.14 vs 1

Modern CPU socket
CPU socket
LGA1151
▲ Better than 61% of models
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP4).
LGA1151 vs FP4
Advanced security extensions
Security extensions
AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
▼ Worse than 56% of models
This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor

80.9% faster Blender rendering
Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
701.43
▲ Better than 75% of models
Market range: <97 – >1.3k
This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (701.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
701.43 vs 387.66

28.8% smaller die size
Die size
126 mm²
▲ Better than 70% of models
Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
126 mm² vs 177 mm²

Supports ECC memory
ECC memory support
yes
▲ Better than 68% of models
This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.

Includes stock cooler
Cooler included
yes
▲ Better than 74% of models
This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
8 °C lower CPU temperature
CPU temperature
92 °C
★ Better than 91% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (92 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
92 °C vs 100 °C
22.2% lower base power
Base power (PL1)
35 W
▲ Better than 52% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
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

Why is Intel Core i3 7100T worse than the average processor?

Hide

4 fewer CPU cores
N. of physical cores
2
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
2 vs 6
64.5% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
3,754
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,754 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
3,754 vs 10,572.5
54% lower multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
2,221
▼ Worse than 68% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,221 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
2,221 vs 4,829
23% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1925
▼ Worse than 73% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1925 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,925 vs 2,500
24.7% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
1,108
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,108 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,108 vs 1,471
4 fewer CPU threads
CPU threads
4
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
4 vs 8
80% smaller L2 cache
L2 cache
0.5 MB
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
16.7% larger process node
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
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

9.7% lower user score
User score
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
▼▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Intel Core i3 7100T
the average processor
Intel Core i3 7100T has a lower user score than the average processor (7.29 vs 8.000).
7.29 vs 8
8.9% worse value for money
Intel Core i3 7100T has worse value for money than the average processor (6.02 vs 6.6).
6.02 vs 6.56

Narrower instruction support
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES
▼ Worse than 62% of models
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
No crypto acceleration
Cryptographic acceleration
AES
▼ Worse than 65% of models
This processor does not include crypto acceleration, the average processor does. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
AES vs AES, SHA
3 years older release date
Release date
2017
▼ Worse than 69% of models
Market range: <2k – >2k
This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
January 2017
2017 vs 2020

4 fewer CPU cores
N. of physical cores
2
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
2 vs 6
64.5% lower PassMark score
PassMark benchmark result
3,754
▼ Worse than 79% of models
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,754 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
3,754 vs 10,572.5
54% lower multi-core score
Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
2,221
▼ Worse than 68% of models
Market range: <763 – >14k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,221 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
2,221 vs 4,829
23% weaker single-core performance
PassMark single-core benchmark score
1925
▼ Worse than 73% of models
Market range: <1.4k – >4k
This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1925 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
1,925 vs 2,500
24.7% lower single-core score
Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
1,108
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <561 – >2.7k
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,108 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,108 vs 1,471
4 fewer CPU threads
CPU threads
4
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
4 vs 8
Lower base clock
CPU base clock speed
2 x 3.4 GHz
▼ Worse than 79% of models
This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
2x3.4 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
59.8% slower classroom rendering
Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
134.28
▲ Better than 75% of models
Market range: <97 – >1.3k
This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (134.3 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
134.28 vs 334.1
20.4% weaker multi-core performance
Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
2,221
▼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <702 – >10.8k
This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2,221 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
2,221 vs 2,791
No Turbo Boost
Turbo Boost version
no
▼ Worse than 89% of models
This processor does not support Turbo Boost, the average processor does. 88.6% of processors support Turbo Boost.

80% smaller L2 cache
L2 cache
0.5 MB
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
0.5 MB vs 2.5 MB
16.7% larger process node
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
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
L2 per core
0.25 MB/core
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
L1 cache
128 KB
▼ Worse than 83% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
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
62.5% smaller L3 cache
L3 cache
3 MB
▼ Worse than 85% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (3 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
3 MB vs 8 MB
12.5% less L3 per core
L3 per core
1.5 MB/core
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
1.5 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core

Older DDR support
DDR memory version
DDR3L/DDR4
▼ Worse than 78% of models
This processor supports an older DDR generation than the average processor (DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4).
DDR3L/DDR4 vs DDR4
Lower JEDEC memory speed
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
▼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
18.2% lower memory speed
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
2,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
16.2% lower memory bandwidth
Maximum memory bandwidth
38.4 GB/s
▼ Worse than 61% of models
Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s

Inferior integrated GPU
Integrated GPU model
Intel HD Graphics 630
▼ Worse than 74% of models
This processor uses an inferior integrated GPU to the average processor (Intel HD Graphics 630 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
Intel HD Graphics 630 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630

8 °C lower TJ Max
Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
92 °C
▼ Worse than 92% of models
Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (92 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
92 °C vs 100 °C

Based on 10 buyer reviews from online shops.

Read buyer reviews on Amazon →

How we calculate this

User ratings – average star rating across all shop listings, weighted by how many reviews each has, on a 1–10 scale.

Number of reviews – how many buyer reviews the product has, on a logarithmic scale; the 8% most-reviewed models in the category get 10.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

tomshardware.fr

05/10/2017

Summary of the review

Review: Coffee Lake Core i7-8700K and 8700 (includes i3-7100T in comparison charts)

The Tom's Hardware France review highlights the Intel Core i7-8700K and i7-8700 as a major market advancement, bringing six cores to the mainstream lineup. Performance gains are driven by these higher core counts and aggressive Turbo Boost frequencies up to 4.7 GHz, leading to superior multi-threaded results in rendering and encoding. Tom’ Gaming-wise, the 8700K is touted as the new performance leader, outclassing competitors with high overclocking potential (up to 5.0 GHz all-core). However, a significant drawback is the mandatory switch to a new Z370 motherboard despite using the LGA 1151 socket, alongside inconsistent performance in specific DX12/Vulkan titles. Thermals are a major concern, as the 8700K runs hot, frequently hitting 94°C in stress tests and requiring robust cooling solutions. Furthermore, the review notes the non-K i7-8700 version’s stock cooler is insufficient for sustained heavy workloads, and the overall platform transition carries a high entry cost.

17/01/2018

Review: Core i3-8100 vs. 14 budget CPUs", "Intel Core i3-7100 Review: Kaby Lake hits the entry-level market

According to Tom's Hardware France, the Intel Core i3-8100 brings four physical cores to the budget segment for the first time, effectively replacing previous-generation i5 models. The chip operates at a fixed 3.6 GHz without Turbo Boost but offers strong, consistent performance for budget builds, effectively challenging AMD's Ryzen 3 lineup. Performance-wise, the i3-8100 shines in 1080p gaming (e.g., GTA V) and single-threaded tasks, utilizing its high IPC to outperform similarly priced competition in many scenarios. It shows surprising competency in productivity tasks like x265 encoding, while maintaining low temperatures under load. Key advantages include its excellent price-to-performance ratio for gaming, power efficiency, and included cooler, though it is limited by a lack of overclocking support. A notable drawback at the time of review was the requirement for more expensive Z370 motherboards, increasing the total platform cost for a budget CPU. Tom’

cpu.userbenchmark.com

25/03/2026

Intel Core i3-7100T BX80677I37100T - CPU UserBenchmarks (NLD results)

The Intel Core i3-7100T is a 2-core, 4-thread Kaby Lake desktop processor launched in 2017, designed for low-power, compact, or home theater systems with a 35W TDP. Operating at a fixed 3.40 GHz without Turbo Boost, it provides, as noted in the UserBenchmark review, adequate performance for basic computing tasks like web browsing and office applications while maintaining high energy efficiency. Key advantages include Intel HD Graphics 630 support for 4K 60Hz displays and capacity for up to 64GB of RAM. However, the processor is considered outdated by modern standards, featuring only two cores and lacking the ability to boost speed, resulting in performance that lags significantly behind modern, higher-core count alternatives. It is poorly suited for modern gaming or intensive productivity tasks, offering roughly 169% slower multi-core performance compared to modern alternatives. While suitable for light,,, specific use cases like simple Plex servers, its lack of modern capabilities makes it unsuitable for future-proof computing.

Third-party reviews

Reviews last updated: May 2026 · How we calculate this

What we like about Intel Core i3 7100T

High energy efficiency with a low 35W TDP, making it ideal for power-conscious builds.
Operates with very low heat output, often idling around 32°C to 35°C.
Reliable for light computing tasks, web browsing, and office work.
Excellent for Home Theatre PCs (HTPC) and media servers, capable of 1080p and light 4K transcoding.
Strong single-thread performance compared to older generation i5 processors.
Budget-friendly price point for users repurposing older LGA1151 motherboards.

What we don't like about Intel Core i3 7100T

Limited to 2 physical cores, which can cause sluggishness in modern multitasking and heavy applications.
Lacks a 'Turbo Boost' feature, keeping it at a fixed 3.4GHz clock speed.
Underperforms in CPU-intensive games (e.g., GTA V), where users report occasional stuttering.
Approximately 12% less powerful than the standard i3-7100 due to its lower clock speed.
Struggles with modern high-demand web browsing (like heavy YouTube sessions) and professional photo editing in 2024.
Does not support newer motherboard chipsets, limiting the future upgrade path to older 100/200 series boards.

Intel Core i3 7100T Review | 78 Data compared

Best prices

Best rankings

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3 7100T

Intel Core i3 7100T vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i3 7100T better than the average processor?

Why is Intel Core i3 7100T worse than the average processor?

Expert reviews

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i3 7100T

What we don't like about Intel Core i3 7100T

Verdict

Best alternatives

Compare Intel Core i3 7100T with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i3 7100T and other processors