OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

Intel Core i3-9100F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£95PassMark multi-core score:6703N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:LGA1151TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i3-9100F Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 10 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i3-9100F

5.3/10

▼Worse than 93% of processors

6.7

▼Worse than 83%

4.6

▼Worse than 69%

4.6

▼Worse than 80%

?

Not in any best-of list yet

3.9
Gaming
Gaming
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Measures single-core benchmark performance, peak boost clock speeds, and fast L3 cache sizing critical for high frame rates.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
30.0%
4.5
PassMark single-core score
25.0%
4.2
Geekbench 6 single-core score
20.0%
5.5
CPU boost clock speed
17.0%
1.6
L3 cache
8.0%
2.3
N. of physical cores
2.6
Video editing
Video editing
2.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Assesses multi-core benchmark throughput, total physical core and thread count, and cache bandwidth for rapid video rendering.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this processors meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
3.4
Geekbench 6 multi-core score
20.0%
2.3
N. of physical cores
20.0%
2.1
CPU threads
15.0%
1.6
L3 cache

Where to buy

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

What reviewers say about the Intel Core i3-9100F

Based on 1 · 10

Reviewers find it a solid budget gaming chip, but say it can bottleneck stronger graphics cards and lacks integrated graphics.

Praised

Criticised

Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Intel Core i3-9100F

Based on 172 owners sharing their experience in online comments

40%positive7%mixed53%negative

Owners like the affordable gaming performance, but many report stuttering, CPU bottlenecks, and overheating.

What owners like

Owners say the i3-9100F gives strong gaming performance for its low price, often paired with budget GPUs like the GTX 1650 or RX 580.19
Owners report it pairs well with many budget graphics cards, including the GTX 1650, GTX 1660, RX 580 and RX 570, without a noticeable bottleneck.19
Owners with GTX 1650 or GTX 1660 cards report 100+ fps in many games at high settings, though some mention capping frame rate to match their monitor.15
Owners who play casually say the CPU runs smoothly for gaming and everyday tasks, such as streaming a game or having a browser open.9
Owners with GTX 1650, GTX 1660 or RX 580 cards say most games run at high or ultra settings, with some newer demanding titles needing lower settings.6
Owners use it for everyday work, background apps, browser tabs, and light server tasks, with 16 GB of RAM running smoothly.5
Runs GTA V at playable frame rates4
Owners say the i3-9100F performs close to much pricier Intel chips in games, and in some cases matches or beats a Ryzen 5 1600.3

What owners dislike

Stutters, lags, or drops frames31
Owners say the CPU caps frame rates in some games, often around 100 to 150 fps, and some find it slower than expected in newer or demanding titles.23
Owners report the CPU hitting 100% usage in games like Fortnite, Battlefield and Rainbow Six Siege, while the GPU sits at only 20 to 40% usage.13
Some owners get no display after installing the CPU, especially on Gigabyte H310M or MSI B360 boards, and report the BIOS may need updating for this 9th gen chip.12
Owners report the stock cooler runs hot, reaching around 80 to 100 °C in games like Fortnite and Apex Legends, and suggest a better aftermarket cooler.10
Owners say the CPU holds back newer AAA and open-world games, such as Red Dead Redemption and The Witcher 3, leading to lower frame rates and bottlenecks.8
Owners with 8 GB of RAM report stutters and frame drops in games like CS:GO and Fortnite, and say the single 8 GB stick limits performance; 16 GB helps.8
Owners with GTX 1650, GTX 1660 or RX 580 cards say the CPU bottlenecks the GPU in some games, especially in competitive titles at high frame rates.7
Owners say running Discord, a browser or streaming software in the background noticeably hurts game performance on this CPU.6
Owners with GTX 1050 Ti or GTX 1650 cards report the GPU stuck at 35 to 40% usage while the CPU is at 100%, suggesting the processor is the limit.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-9100F

5.3

Show more

Hide

Platform

7.5

Show more

Hide

Processor type

CPU socket

Chipset

CPU architecture

Instruction sets

Show more

Performance

3.9

Show more

Hide

N. of physical cores

CPU threads

CPU boost clock speed

CPU base clock speed

PassMark multi-core score

Show more

What reviewers say

Architecture

4.8

Show more

Hide

Semiconductor size

Foundry

L3 cache

L2 cache

L1 cache

Show more

Memory & PCIe

5.2

Show more

Hide

DDR memory version

Maximum memory speed

Max memory speed (JEDEC)

Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)

?

Maximum memory capacity

Show more

What reviewers say

Integrated graphics

4.0

Show more

Hide

Integrated graphics

Integrated GPU model

N/A

Integrated GPU execution units

N/A

Integrated GPU base frequency

N/A

Integrated media encoders/decoders

N/A

Show more

What reviewers say

Power & Thermal

6.9

Show more

Hide

TDP (Thermal design power)

Base power (PL1)

Boost power (PL2)

?

Tau (power duration limit)

Configurable TDP

Show more

What reviewers say

Intel Core i3-9100F vs the average processor

Why is Intel Core i3-9100F better than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

5.29x faster classroom rendering
This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,798 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
1,798 vs 340.075
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.
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 Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
Coffee Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
Modern CPU socket
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
LGA1151 vs FP5
2.63x cheaper
Intel Core i3-9100F is cheaper than the average processor (£95 vs £250).
£95 vs £250

2.63x cheaper
Intel Core i3-9100F is cheaper than the average processor (£95 vs £250).
£95 vs £250

Modern CPU socket
This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1151 vs FP5).
LGA1151 vs FP5

5.29x faster classroom rendering
This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,798 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
1,798 vs 340.075

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 Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
Coffee Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake

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.

Why is Intel Core i3-9100F worse than the average processor?

Show more

Hide

31.3% lower review score
Reviews score
4.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 80% of models
4.6
Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score
80%
7.1
Average grade
20%
8.7
Popularity
Grades by review (10)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 9 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.
4.6 vs 6.7
58.1% weaker multi-core performance
This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,175 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
1,175 vs 2,804.5
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
41.6% lower PassMark score
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,703 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
6,703 vs 11,469
No configurable TDP
This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
Narrower instruction support
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, 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, 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
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.

31.3% lower review score
Reviews score
4.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 80% of models
4.6
Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score
80%
7.1
Average grade
20%
8.7
Popularity
Grades by review (10)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 9 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.
4.6 vs 6.7
36.1% lower sentiment score
4.6 vs 7.2
8.5% worse value for money
Intel Core i3-9100F has worse value for money than the average processor (6.71 vs 7.3).
6.71 vs 7.29

Narrower instruction support
This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, 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, 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
Weaker security extensions
This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
More limited crypto acceleration
This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
AES vs AES, SHA

58.1% weaker multi-core performance
This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,175 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
1,175 vs 2,804.5
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
41.6% lower PassMark score
This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,703 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
6,703 vs 11,469
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.
28.5% lower multi-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,723 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
3,723 vs 5,209
4.5% lower boost clock
This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
8.5% lower single-core score
This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,405 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
1,405 vs 1,535

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

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

No integrated graphics
This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.

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
20 seconds shorter turbo duration
This processor has a lower turbo duration limit than the average processor (8 seconds vs 28 seconds). The average processor maintains turbo for 28 seconds.
8 seconds vs 28 seconds

Video reviews

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

9.0

PC Tech Review 101

≈ estimated

18/11/2019

Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and CPU comparison

Verdict

Intel Core i3-9100F is worth buying, with gaming performance close to an older Core i5.

6.0

RandomGaminginHD

≈ estimated

02/07/2019

Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and video editing

Verdict

Intel Core i3-9100F handles many games well, but it is hard to recommend given the alternatives on the market.

8.0

PC H/W and Tech Unboxings 🔥

≈ estimated

01/06/2019

Hands-on review · benchmarks and comparisons

Verdict

Intel Core i3-9100F is strong for gaming at its price, but weak for productivity and needs a separate graphics card.

Not graded

Overview video

Overview video

Hands-on video, no verdict

Not graded

Hands-on video, no verdict

Not graded

Not graded

Not graded

AurosPrime · 23/11/2024

Hands-on test · game benchmarks and verdict

Intel Core i3-9100F is no longer recommended for demanding use, as game stutter and weak multitasking hold it back.

Likes

Excellent Valorant performance at low settings
Good price-to-performance when it launched
Works well with budget GPUs like the GTX 1650

Dislikes

Stuttering in Fortnite, Spider-Man and Infinite caused by CPU load
No hyper-threading limits multitasking
Multi-core performance trails AMD rivals
A used i5-8500 is the better alternative

benjaps07 · 27/09/2020

Hands-on review · multitasking, rendering and gaming tests

Intel Core i3-9100F handles editing, multitasking and background tasks smoothly; it is good value for basic workloads, though faster CPUs exist.

Likes

Stable performance with rendering, browsing and music all running at once
Moderate temperatures under heavy multitasking load
Good value for the performance it delivers

Dislikes

Noticeably slower than more powerful processors
Browser pages load a bit slower with many tabs open

benjaps07 · 16/08/2020

Hands-on test · FPS in several games

Intel Core i3-9100F gives very good gaming performance, with high frame rates in most titles despite minor CPU limits.

Likes

Very high frame rates in Fortnite, Warframe and Valorant
Minecraft stays above 100 FPS even with shaders enabled
PUBG Lite runs above 150 FPS with ultra graphics
GPU temperatures stay under control during the gaming tests

Dislikes

CPU reaches 100% usage in Fortnite, causing a bottleneck at low settings
Small stutters in Fortnite at epic settings
Fortnite stays around 60 FPS at epic settings

Vault 22 · 06/07/2020

Hands-on benchmark · 9 games with gameplay footage

Intel Core i3-9100F makes a good starter build with a solid CPU and upgrade path, though some demanding games need medium settings.

Likes

Strong 1080p performance at high settings in most games
Upgradeable platform with plenty of expansion options
Stable, reliable motherboard

Dislikes

Some games need medium settings to hold 60 fps
Around 65 to 80 fps in demanding titles, short of competitive frame rate targets
Some games seem poorly optimised

Arima · 07/02/2022

Hands-on review · Cinebench, gaming and streaming tests

Intel Core i3-9100F is not recommended at this price, as better processors are available for the same money.

Likes

Low power consumption and no overheating
Good single-core performance for gaming
Handles triple-A games without holding back the graphics card
Stable for video editing and light multitasking

Dislikes

No integrated graphics, so a dedicated graphics card is required
Weak multi-core performance in Cinebench
Bottlenecks competitive games like Valorant and Fortnite
Better options available for the same price

benjaps07 · 13/01/2021

Hands-on test · Call of Duty Warzone at 720p and 1080p

Intel Core i3-9100F is playable in Call of Duty Warzone, but it bottlenecks the graphics card, so a stronger processor is better.

Likes

Around 70 to 90 FPS at 720p on low settings
Playable frame rates at 720p on medium and high settings
Playable frame rates at 1080p on low settings

Dislikes

The CPU is loaded far more than the graphics card, creating a bottleneck
Only 8 GB of RAM causes stutters on high settings
Frame rates drop to around 50 FPS at 1080p on high settings

Skone10 · 19/08/2020

Gaming test · three games, fps results

Intel Core i3-9100F delivers playable gaming performance, but the creator finds it overpriced for its quality.

Likes

Playable frame rates in the three tested games
Good quality for a Core i3 chip

Dislikes

Seems overpriced for what it delivers
Prices and availability vary by region

LeTechnovore · 07/08/2020

Hands-on review · gaming and editing tests in Full HD

Intel Core i3-9100F gives excellent price-to-performance for Full HD gaming and light editing, with only minor limits on overclocking and RAM.

Likes

Runs games in Ultra at Full HD without bottlenecks
Four physical cores with high base and turbo clocks
Handles editing and heavier tasks well
Best price-to-performance ratio from Intel for Full HD

Dislikes

Locked, so it cannot be overclocked
RAM speed limited to 2400 MHz

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0

servethehome.com

≈ estimated

25/10/2019

Intel Core i3-9100F Benchmarks and Review for Servers

Server test · Entry server chip

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-9100F suits basic servers that only need text console video, but it lacks business features such as vPro.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Intel Core i3-9100F

Excellent value for budget-conscious entry-level gaming builds
Strong single-core performance with a 4.2GHz turbo boost, outperforming some older i7 models
Low power consumption (65W TDP) and generally runs cool even with the stock cooler
Reliable for daily office tasks, web browsing, and light content creation
Good compatibility with affordable H310 and B365 motherboards

What customers don't like about Intel Core i3-9100F

Lack of Hyper-Threading (4 cores/4 threads) causes stuttering in modern AAA games
No integrated graphics requires a mandatory dedicated GPU to get video output
Severe CPU bottlenecking when paired with mid-to-high-tier graphics cards (e.g., RTX 2060 and above)
Poor multitasking and background app performance (e.g., Discord or Spotify lagging during play)
Limited memory support (officially up to DDR4-2400)

Verdict

The Intel Core i3-9100F is a 9th-generation Coffee Lake Refresh quad-core processor featuring 4 cores, 4 threads, a 3.6 GHz base clock, and a 4.2 GHz turbo frequency with a 65W TDP. It includes 6 MB of Intel Smart Cache and supports up to 64 GB of dual-channel DDR4-2400 memory on the LGA 1151 socket. Main pros include its affordability for budget gaming builds, reliable single-core performance boosted by Turbo Boost 2.0, and support for ECC memory. However, it lacks integrated graphics (requiring a discrete GPU), does not support hyper-threading, and has a locked multiplier that prevents traditional overclocking.

Best alternatives

AMD Ryzen 5 8400F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5600

Processors

Intel Core i3-12100F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7500F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 1700

Processors

Intel Core i3-14100F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 4600G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

Processors

AMD Ryzen 3 5300G

Processors

AMD Ryzen 5 7400F

Processors

AMD Ryzen 7 2700X

Processors

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare Intel Core i3-9100F with other processors

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i3-9100F and other processors

No results found