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 i3-8100H review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£180PassMark multi-core score:4435N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:N/A GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1440TDP (Thermal design power):45 W

Intel Core i3-8100H Review: Compare 168 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 45%, Reviews score 25%, List score 20%, 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
Score components

45%

4.7

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

20%

?

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 65% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 53%
4.7

Technical score

Technical score
4.7/ 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 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

4.7

Architecture

10%

6.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 67%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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 20% 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
Best prices
    N/A~ £180
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading...
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-8100H

Technical score
Technical score
4.7/ 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 45% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components:

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

4.7

Architecture

10%

6.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.4

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated graphics

4.7
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

7.2
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
FCBGA1440
This processor uses the FCBGA1440 CPU socket, which is older than that of 82.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.5% of processors.
Chipset
Intel 300 Series
This processor supports Intel 300 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 55% of processors and equal to that of 1.7% 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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 50.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
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 3.0 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.0 GHz which is lower than that of 60.7% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
4,435
This processor scores 4,435 in PassMark, which is lower than 75.9% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 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
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
1 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
256 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
2,666 MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to 7.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2666 MHz, which is lower than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to 7.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
64 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 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
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
350 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), VC-1
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
45 W
This processor has a TDP of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
45 W
This processor has a base power of 45 W which is lower than that of 41.9% of processors and equal to that of 11% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
45 W
This processor has a boost power of 45 W which is lower than that of 72.5% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 35 W
Show more

Intel Core i3-8100H vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 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
  • 29.7% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (45 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    45 W vs 64 W
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Coffee Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 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 ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 29.7% lower boost power
    This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (45 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    45 W vs 64 W
  • 61.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,435 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,435 vs 11,469
  • 29.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,792 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,792 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 25.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,147 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,147 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 32% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,544 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,544 vs 5,209
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, 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, 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, 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, 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
  • Older CPU socket
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1440 vs FP5).
    FCBGA1440 vs FP5
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 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, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 2 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    July 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • 61.3% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (4,435 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    4,435 vs 11,469
  • 29.9% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,792 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,792 vs 2,558
  • 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
  • 25.3% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,147 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,147 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 32% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,544 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,544 vs 5,209
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x3 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 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
  • 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
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2666 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 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
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2666 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,666 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 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), VC-1 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), VC-1 vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i3-8100H

  • Features four physical cores, providing a significant upgrade over previous dual-core i3 generations.
  • Integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630 is adequate for 4K video playback and basic desktop tasks.
  • Higher RAM speed support (up to 2666 MHz) compared to some desktop counterparts.
  • Offers solid value for budget-focused or entry-level gaming laptops.
  • Competes well in single-core workloads and certain parallelized productivity tasks.

What we don't like about Intel Core i3-8100H

  • Lacks Turbo Boost technology, meaning it stays at a fixed 3.0 GHz base clock speed.
  • No Hyper-Threading support, limiting it to only four simultaneous threads.
  • Relatively high TDP (45W) for an i3, requiring robust cooling solutions in laptops.
  • Integrated graphics are insufficient for modern 3D gaming at high settings.
  • Older 14nm architecture makes it less energy-efficient than newer 10nm or 7nm alternatives.

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-8100H is a mid-range mobile processor based on the 8th Gen Coffee Lake-H architecture, featuring 4 physical cores and 4 threads with a fixed base clock speed of 3.00 GHz. Manufactured on an improved 14nm++ process, it includes 6MB of Intel Smart Cache, a 45W TDP (configurable down to 35W), and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 630. Main advantages include being the first in its class to offer four real cores—providing a significant performance leap over previous dual-core i3 generations—and support for up to 64GB of DDR4-2666 memory and 4K UHD content at 60Hz. However, its primary drawbacks are the lack of Intel Turbo Boost and Hyper-Threading, meaning it cannot increase its clock speed under heavy loads or handle more than one thread per core, which limits its effectiveness in modern, highly parallelized applications.

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

No results found