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 i3-8100 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£25PassMark multi-core score:6060N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i3-8100 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 21 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i3-8100
6.2/10

Overall score

Score
6.2/ 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 66% of models
Score components

40%

4.8

Technical score

25%

7.9

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

4.8

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 66% of processors
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 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–² Better than 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–²Better than 54%
4.8

Technical score

Technical score
4.8/ 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 65% of models
Score components

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

7.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 65%
7.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.9/ 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–² Better than 66% of models

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

9.2

Popularity

Grades by review (21)
10 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 8 estimated from the review. 11 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–²Better than 66%
?

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-i3-8100
  • intel-core-i3-8100
  • intel-core-i3-8100
  • intel-core-i3-8100
intel-core-i3-8100
intel-core-i3-8100
intel-core-i3-8100
intel-core-i3-8100
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.

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i3-8100

Based on 7 · 12

Reviewers like the value and low power draw, but dislike the costly motherboard requirement and lack of overclocking.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Core i3-8100

Based on 96 owners sharing their experience in online comments

61%positive11%mixed28%negative

Owners like its affordable gaming performance, while some report stuttering and low frame rates in demanding games.

What owners dislike

  • Low frame rates in demanding games like Fortnite, GTA 5 and Warzone, especially when paired with weaker graphics cards or limited RAM.13
  • Stuttering and frame drops appear in games like PUBG, Overwatch, Dota 2 and Roblox, often linked to 4 GB RAM or a hard drive instead of an SSD.12
  • CPU usage stays near 100 percent while the graphics card sits underused, so some owners see the processor limit their GPU in games.4
  • Weak graphics cards such as the GT 710 or HD 6870 cannot run modern games well, so the processor is not the limit.3
  • Systems with 4 GB of RAM or a hard drive instead of an SSD feel slow in everyday use and in long renders.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-8100

Technical score
Technical score
4.8/ 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 65% of models
Score components:

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

5.5

Architecture

10%

5.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

6.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.8

Platform

1%

7.0

Integrated graphics

4.8
Reviews score
7.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 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–² Better than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

6.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.4
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
Z390, Z370, Q370, H370, B365, B360, H310
This processor supports Z390, Z370, Q370, H370, B365, B360, H310 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 57.3% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% 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, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 58.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.6% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% 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
4x 3.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.6 GHz which is higher than that of 50.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
6,060
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 6,060 in PassMark, which is lower than 67.2% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
6 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
L2 cache
?
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
3,200 MHz
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 3,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 91.2% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
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
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 630
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 45.6% of processors and equal to that in 8% 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/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 79.1% of processors and equal to 0.7% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% 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
What reviewers say

Intel Core i3-8100 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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–² Better than 66% of models

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (21)
    10 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 8 estimated from the review. 11 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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    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
  • 10x cheaper
    Intel Core i3-8100 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 17.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.9/ 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–² Better than 66% of models

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    9.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (21)
    10 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 8 estimated from the review. 11 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.
    7.9 vs 6.7
  • 10x cheaper
    Intel Core i3-8100 is cheaper than the average processor (£25 vs £250).
    £25 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
    LGA1151 vs FP5
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    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
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 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.
  • 75.7% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,266 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,266 vs 5,209
  • 47.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,060 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,060 vs 11,469
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 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 simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 14.4% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,190 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,190 vs 2,558
  • 33.3% lower sentiment score
    4.8 vs 7.2
  • 33.3% lower sentiment score
    4.8 vs 7.2
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less 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 Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 3 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    October 2017
    2017 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
  • 75.7% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,266 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,266 vs 5,209
  • 47.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,060 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,060 vs 11,469
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 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 simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 14.4% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,190 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,190 vs 2,558
  • 17.5% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,266 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,266 vs 1,535
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 33.3% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    6 MB vs 9 MB
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 20% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (37.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    37.5 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    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
  • 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/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (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), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), VP8 (HW decode/encode), MPEG-2 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

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

5.0
Thermal Grease Monkey
≈ estimated
30/06/2026
Hands-on test · six games with GTX 1660
Verdict
Intel Core i3-8100 is not bad, but not recommended for many modern games; it suits light tasks and older titles.
9.0
5WTech
≈ estimated
21/04/2019
Full PC build · 1080p benchmarks with GTX 1060
Verdict
Intel Core i3-8100 sits in a well-balanced budget build that performs well and looks clean, despite minor cable issues.
9.0
Proceu Tech
≈ estimated
14/04/2019
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and productivity comparison
Verdict
Intel Core i3-8100 is a strong budget chip and one of the best-value i3 CPUs, though it lags in productivity.
9.0
Tech YES City
≈ estimated
29/05/2018
Hands-on benchmark review · i3-8100 vs i7-8700K with GTX 1060
Verdict
Intel Core i3-8100 is still fine for gaming in 2018 with its four cores and good value, though streaming needs more.
7.0
Nicolas11x12 English
≈ estimated
15/11/2017
Head-to-head comparison · overclocking and gaming tests
Verdict
Intel Core i3-8100 looks better on paper for gaming, but real-world differences with a midrange GPU are small.
9.0
Nicolas11x12 English
≈ estimated
02/11/2017
Hands-on review · gaming tests against Ryzen 3 1200
Verdict
Intel Core i3-8100 is clearly the better gaming pick for its price, earning a gold award despite its locked multiplier.
4.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
14/10/2017
Performance review · gaming and CPU tests against Ryzen 3 1200
Verdict
Intel Core i3-8100 offers strong gaming and CPU performance, but its need for a Z370 board makes it hard to recommend right now.
7.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
07/10/2017
Benchmark review · gaming, productivity and value charts
Verdict
Intel Core i3-8100 offers strong budget gaming value, but it needs cheap motherboards, and the Ryzen 3 1200 is the better pick now.
7.0
Name It Build It
≈ estimated
25/06/2018
Unboxing and installation · first look at a budget quad core
Verdict
Intel Core i3-8100 is a cheap, bottom-of-the-line quad core that is just enough for gaming.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
tomshardware.com
≈ estimated
16/01/2018
Lab test · Gaming and productivity
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8100 has four physical cores and balances gaming and application performance well, but its locked multiplier limits overclocking.
8.0
techspot.com
≈ estimated
09/10/2017
Lab test · Gaming and memory benchmarks
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8100 is a locked four-core chip that outruns the Ryzen 3 1300X in Cinebench and Excel, but budget motherboards are scarce.
8.0
servethehome.com
≈ estimated
29/10/2018
Server test · Low-cost server chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8100 is a low-cost chip for small servers with ECC memory support, and it booted on the first try in testing.
8.4
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
12/09/2018
Lab test · Gaming and application benchmarks
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8100 is a four-core entry chip with a fixed 3.6 GHz clock, suited to a basic gaming PC but outpaced by six-core Core i5s.
8.0
pcgameshardware.de
≈ estimated
08/12/2017
Head-to-head test · Gaming and applications
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8100 beats the Ryzen 3 1300X in most games and applications, but it requires a high-end Z370 motherboard.
8.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
18/01/2018
Lab test · Early Coffee Lake review
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8100 holds up well against 14 processors, but until B-series and H-series boards arrive, it needs a Z370 board.
8.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
16/01/2018
Lab test · Four-core budget chip
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-8100 adds four physical cores to the Core i3 line and is Intel's only direct rival to Ryzen 3.
9.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
16/01/2018
Benchmark review · Stock performance
Verdict
The Core i3-8100 is a strong four-core gaming chip at stock speeds, but it trails the Core i3-7100 in single-thread work.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-8100

  • Excellent value for money as a budget-friendly 4-core processor
  • Strong performance in normal computing and office tasks
  • Low power consumption and high energy efficiency
  • Sufficient for entry-level gaming when paired with a dedicated GPU
  • Significant upgrade over previous dual-core i3 generations
  • Stock cooler is adequate and remains quiet under load

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-8100

  • Lacks Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading technology
  • Weak integrated graphics (UHD 630) unsuitable for demanding modern games
  • Can become a bottleneck in CPU-intensive games, leading to high usage
  • Locked multiplier prevents any manual overclocking
  • Limited future-proofing compared to 6-core or newer 8-thread alternatives
  • Requires specific 300-series motherboards, which initially increased total build cost

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-8100 is an 8th Gen Coffee Lake desktop processor featuring 4 physical cores and 4 threads with a fixed base clock speed of 3.6 GHz and a 6MB Smart Cache. Built on 14nm lithography with a 65W TDP, it includes integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 and supports up to 64GB of DDR4-2400 memory and ECC. Its main strengths include significantly improved multi-core performance over its dual-core predecessors, matching older i5 models in value, and providing reliable performance for mainstream computing and light gaming. However, its primary drawbacks are the lack of Intel Turbo Boost technology, a locked multiplier that prevents overclocking, and a requirement for newer 300-series motherboards despite using the LGA 1151 socket.

Compare Intel Core i3-8100 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 i3-8100 and other processors

No results found