Monday, April 27th 2020

Intel Core i3-10300 and i3-10100 Cinebench Scores Surface, Compared with Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100

Intel is giving finishing touches to its 10th generation Core i3 desktop processors based on the "Comet Lake" microarchitecture. These upcoming socket LGA1200 processors are 4-core/8-thread, and see the debut of HyperThreading and Turbo Boost technologies to the Core i3 desktop processor brand extension. The i3-10100 is an entry-level part clocked at 3.60 GHz with 4.30 GHz boost; while the i3-10300 is clocked higher with 3.70 GHz nominal and 4.40 GHz boost frequency. The TDP of both parts is rated at 65 W. Besides clock speeds, the two parts are differentiated with L3 cache amount, with the i3-10100 featuring 6 MB, and the i3-10300 featuring 8 MB. Cinebench R20 scores of the two chips were leaked to the web by CPU-Monkey.

The i3-10100 reportedly scores 448 points in the single-thread, and 2284 points in the multi-threaded test. The i3-10300, on the other hand, scores 457 points in the single-threaded test, and 2330 points in the multi-threaded test. The same source also claims to have tested the upcoming 3rd generation AMD Ryzen 3 "Matisse" 4-core/8-thread processor series, with the Ryzen 3 3100 scoring 444 points single-thread and 2154 points multi-threaded; and the Ryzen 3 3300X scoring 491 points single-thread, and 2341 points multi-threaded. If these scores hold true, it's game on between the two companies' entry-level chips.
Source: 3DCenter.org
Add your own comment

24 Comments on Intel Core i3-10300 and i3-10100 Cinebench Scores Surface, Compared with Ryzen 3 3300X and 3100

#1
Rowsol
A 2% difference between the two. What's the point of having both SKUs?
The 3300x ST is really high, I guess the single CCX is to blame?
Posted on Reply
#2
Berfs1
Intel requires a good bin and a bad bin chip. Basically that's how their 10300 and 10100 will differentiate.
Posted on Reply
#3
R0H1T
Hard to be believe we're getting more than 3x the value (perf/$) of a 7700k or 6950x just 3 years down the line! Thanks AMD :toast:
Posted on Reply
#4
watzupken
Competition is always good. While Intel was dominating, we get 2 cores, no HT, low end processors for almost a decade. Enter AMD and within 2 years, Intel is forced to release 4 core budget processors to catch up. Add another year to it, and Intel unlocked HT on all their processors to compete.

Personally, I feel at the low end, Intel has got no chance to compete in terms of value because they adamantly disallow people to overclock on non K series chips, and non Z series motherboard. If the results are close at stock, Intel chips will not be able to catch up with an overclocked Ryzen 3xxx, even on a budget B450 motherboard.
Posted on Reply
#5
ZoneDymo
im looking forward to a review of these processors.
Posted on Reply
#6
john_
If these scores hold true, it's game on between the two companies' entry-level chips.
Well, maybe. We'll have to see the real TDP, the cooling solutions included, if those solution are enough or the consumer needs to pay extra for a real cooler, the value of the platform for each CPU and of course final prices. The only real advantage of those Intel chips will be probably the integrated GPU. They will be perfect for office systems without a discrete GPU. But in every other case, I believe the value/performance will be with the AMD chips.
Posted on Reply
#7
R0H1T
john_
The only real advantage of those Intel chips will be probably the integrated GPU.
Renoir will probably do to Intel, notebook & desktops, what the original Ryzen to KBL i.e. force even more "innovation" & of course massive price cuts across the board!
Posted on Reply
#8
The Quim Reaper
4c 8t, todays king of the hill, tomorrows bargain bucket deal...
Posted on Reply
#9
AsRock
TPU addict
watzupken
Competition is always good. While Intel was dominating, we get 2 cores, no HT, low end processors for almost a decade. Enter AMD and within 2 years, Intel is forced to release 4 core budget processors to catch up. Add another year to it, and Intel unlocked HT on all their processors to compete.

Personally, I feel at the low end, Intel has got no chance to compete in terms of value because they adamantly disallow people to overclock on non K series chips, and non Z series motherboard. If the results are close at stock, Intel chips will not be able to catch up with an overclocked Ryzen 3xxx, even on a budget B450 motherboard.
This is a AMD win if all is to believed, intel will have the stop the new motherboard bs as well.
Posted on Reply
#10
Caring1
Sucks to be an old i7 right now, the student has surpassed the master well and truly.
Posted on Reply
#11
ARF
R0H1T
Hard to be believe we're getting more than 3x the value (perf/$) of a 7700k or 6950x just 3 years down the line! Thanks AMD :toast:
It could have been better if the first generation Ryzen 3 1200 and Ryzen 3 1300X had been better.
Ryzen 3 1200 (4C/4T) - 333 | 1191 www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-amd_ryzen_3_1200-713
Ryzen 3 1300X (4C/4T) - 360 | 1357 www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-amd_ryzen_3_1300x-712

Core i7-7700K with its 2257 sits right between Ryzen 5 1500X (4C/8T) 1811 189$ and Ryzen 5 1600 (6C/12T) 2501 219$.
www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-intel_core_i7_7700k-664
www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-amd_ryzen_5_1500x-709
www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu-amd_ryzen_5_1600-758

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Ryzen_microprocessors#CPUs_2


But first generation Ryzen 5 1600 still slashed Core i7-7700K pricing by 35%.
Posted on Reply
#12
dj-electric
If there's one market that's gonna heat up the most, i think its that 85-120$ one with the clash of new Ryzen 3 series and Core i3 10th gen
Posted on Reply
#13
AsRock
TPU addict
Caring1
Sucks to be an old i7 right now, the student has surpassed the master well and truly.
depends how you look at it, well it depends on your requirements. I have had 0 issue playing games at 1080P although if i had some thing like a 2080 sure it be more of a issue but would not need.

Unless your on about the security part which is looking more like a sieve every year that passes.
Posted on Reply
#14
ARF
Had the Core i7-7700K been a 6C/12T, things would have looked much different now.
Intel plays its cards badly to this day.

I guess they didn't expect the first generation Ryzen lineup to be that competitive, and Intel's scouting/intelligence failed.
Posted on Reply
#15
Turmania
Bless Intel, if they did not up their game we would be stuck with ryzen 5 chips, now we have ryzen 3 chips as well. Love competition :)
Posted on Reply
#16
ARF
Turmania
Bless Intel, if they did not up their game we would be stuck with ryzen 5 chips, now we have ryzen 3 chips as well. Love competition :)
This is just stupid competition - when Intel releases top of its line 10C/20T and AMD has nothing, it releases low-end parts.
The same with Nvidia - when Nvidia released the RTX 2080 Ti, AMD countered with Radeon R9 230.
Posted on Reply
#17
Papahyooie
ARF
This is just stupid competition - when Intel releases top of its line 10C/20T and AMD has nothing, it releases low-end parts.
The same with Nvidia - when Nvidia released the RTX 2080 Ti, AMD countered with Radeon R9 230.
That's because AMD's part has 12-16 cores lol
Posted on Reply
#18
Chrispy_
At this price range, Intel don't need to compete, they need to include a decent cooler too.

Even the cheapest AMD cooler (The Wraith Stealth) has more metal than Intel's cooler and a better/quieter fan. People on really tight budgets can get by with AMD's Wraith Stealth but only the most desperate person will put with an Intel boxed cooler. Throttling is all but guaranteed and they're loud for anything except idle. With the cheapest althernatives to Intel's boxed coolers being in the $20 range, that's an extra cost advantage that Intel need to match.
Posted on Reply
#19
Turmania
I think direct competitor for ryzen3 3300x would be i3 10350K, which is not shown in this... you have to remember that as well.
Posted on Reply
#20
Berfs1
Rowsol
The 3300x ST is really high, I guess the single CCX is to blame?
To blame? I mean, having less CCXs means less latency, which basically speaking, can increase single threaded performance. I would say that's a good thing!
Posted on Reply
#21
john_
Berfs1
To blame? I mean, having less CCXs means less latency, which basically speaking, can increase single threaded performance. I would say that's a good thing!
Probably that's what he means. Even if the word "blame" is not the best choice here, the meaning is probably the same as with what you write.
Posted on Reply
#22
Berfs1
Intel I assume will still win in games, however there is a new AMD update that may change that...
Posted on Reply
#23
john_
It seems so. Intel doesn't have the products to fight desktop APUs based on Renoir, cheap Zen 2 models like those in this article and mid range/hi end Zen 3 based Ryzen multicore CPUs. They probably know this and they have 5 months to see what they will do then. I believe this will be one of the rare cases where Intel will have to really drop prices in mainstream products. That powerful ACE they had under their sleeve, and I mean OEMs, it's already on the table. It will be interesting to see if they hide another.
Posted on Reply
#24
mechtech
Chrispy_
At this price range, Intel don't need to compete, they need to include a decent cooler too.

Even the cheapest AMD cooler (The Wraith Stealth) has more metal than Intel's cooler and a better/quieter fan. People on really tight budgets can get by with AMD's Wraith Stealth but only the most desperate person will put with an Intel boxed cooler. Throttling is all but guaranteed and they're loud for anything except idle. With the cheapest althernatives to Intel's boxed coolers being in the $20 range, that's an extra cost advantage that Intel need to match.
They could, but looking at their profits they don't have to, and them looking at their profits they don't need to price inline with AMD and it doesn't look like they care to either, and will probably make another socket so a new mobo is needed also ;) I guess in a way that's good, it does give AMD extra leg up for value.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment