Monday, December 27th 2021

Intel Core i3-12100 and i3-12300 "Alder Lake" Quad-Core Chips Tested

Intel's upcoming Core i3-12100 and i3-12300 quad-core processors that form the value-end of the 12th Gen Core "Alder Lake-S" desktop processor family, pack an incredible mix of performance for their segment, which puts them ahead of six-core parts from the previous-generation, according to performance testing on the ChipHell forums. The two chips are based on the "H0" silicon, and feature four "Golden Cove" P-cores with HyperThreading enabled; no E-cores, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. From what we can tell, the i3-12100 and i3-12300 are segment only by a 100 MHz maximum boost frequency value, and possibly at the iGPU-level.

Among the tests run by ChipHell are Cinebench R20, Cinebench R23, CPU-Z bench, CS:GO; and power/thermal testing using AIDA64. Right off the bat, we see the two chips flex their high IPC in the CPU-Z bench, scoring 687 points (i3-12100), and 702.5 points (i3-12300). An AMD "Zen 3" based quad-core chip, such as the OEM-only Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G, should score roughly 620 points, while the slowest "Rocket Lake" part, the i5-11400, only does 566 points. The multi-threaded test sees scores ranging between 3407 to 3482 points for the two.
CB R20 and R23 see the i3-12100 and i3-12300 top the performance charts in comparison to the Ryzen 3 5350G, posting 21-25% higher single-threaded scores in CB R20; and 22-25% in CB R23 single-thread. Both chips offer proportionately high multi-threaded performance compared to the 5350G. The i3-12300 ends up 17% slower in multi-threaded CB R23 than the six-core i5-11400, and 28% slower than the 5600G. Find these results and more, in the source links below.
Sources: VideoCardz, ChipHell, 3DCenter.org, WCCFTech
Add your own comment

97 Comments on Intel Core i3-12100 and i3-12300 "Alder Lake" Quad-Core Chips Tested

#2
TheoneandonlyMrK
Cinebench r20 gets rolled out wtaf , and I got over 4000 on a r5 3350G three days ago ,it had SMT though, but not stellar Multi scores on r23.
Posted on Reply
#4
QuietBob
For the curious, these are my bench results with a Ryzen 3 3300X oc'd to 4.5 GHz on all cores. This is about the highest reliable overclock that doesn't need 1.4+ volts:

STMT
CPU-Z5543064
Cinebench R205222743
Cinebench R2313427122
3DMark CPU Profile7733488
3DMark Time Spy CPU-5669


AMD desperately needs a new budget SKU to compete with Alder Lake in this market.
Posted on Reply
#5
seth1911
AMD still dont release anything in the entry market, yeah for sure u can get a 200GE for 90€.
While u can get a 10100F for 76€.

:laugh:

Amd will be faster back on its low market % than they tough, on the GPU market they are now with a lower % than 10 years ago.

AMD GPU (inc. IGP):
2011 18,96%
2021 16,74%

:peace::peace::peace::peace:
Posted on Reply
#6
TheinsanegamerN
QuietBobFor the curious, these are my bench results with a Ryzen 3 3300X oc'd to 4.5 GHz on all cores. This is about the highest reliable overclock that doesn't need 1.4+ volts:

STMT
CPU-Z5543064
Cinebench R205222743
Cinebench R2313427122
3DMark CPU Profile7733488


AMD desperately needs a new budget SKU to compete with Alder Lake in this market.
AMD needs budget options in gereal. Their 5600x was a functional 100% price increase for a 20% performance increase, their budget APU the 5300g is still OEM only, and is kneecapped by having half the L3 cache and PCIe 3.0 only. The 3300x was wildly popular, and thus was never produced in big numbers, and never got any replacement.

Intel is going to sweep the budget market, and then ironically if those people every want something more expensive/powerful they now have the platform to buy a raptor lake i7/i9 down the line.

AMd is banking too hard on their "long life platform" and the community's rabid defense of their CPUs now matter how poor the value is.
Posted on Reply
#7
seth1911
AMD have every where a poor price/performance.

3000G 90€
Pentium 56€

I3 xyzF 75-95€

3600 200€
10400F 136€
11400F 156€

3700 321€
10700F 254€
11700F 289€
Posted on Reply
#8
DeathtoGnomes
TheinsanegamerNand the community'sfanbois rabid defense of their CPUs now matter how poor the value is.
fixed that for you. The fanbois for Intel do exactly the same thing, but I wouldnt call it a rabid defense when its an obvious attack to the other camp. Why not consider what the pricing will trigger? AMD will slash pricing to be more competitive, that something they've always done when Intel invokes a price war. Intel is the same way in similar circumstances. Its all a reaction to the other sides actions, welcome to business.
Posted on Reply
#9
docnorth
More important might be that 12300 stays at 64w during Aida64, 12100 3w lower.
MelvisClock speed?
4400 for 12300, 4300 for 12100 (single core boost).
Posted on Reply
#10
Why_Me
DeathtoGnomesfixed that for you. The fanbois for Intel do exactly the same thing, but I wouldnt call it a rabid defense when its an obvious attack to the other camp. Why not consider what the pricing will trigger? AMD will slash pricing to be more competitive, that something they've always done when Intel invokes a price war. Intel is the same way in similar circumstances. Its all a reaction to the other sides actions, welcome to business.
AMD didn't cut prices after the release of the 11400F/11700F so what makes you think they'll cut them now?
Posted on Reply
#11
TheinsanegamerN
DeathtoGnomesfixed that for you. The fanbois for Intel do exactly the same thing, but I wouldnt call it a rabid defense when its an obvious attack to the other camp. Why not consider what the pricing will trigger? AMD will slash pricing to be more competitive, that something they've always done when Intel invokes a price war. Intel is the same way in similar circumstances. Its all a reaction to the other sides actions, welcome to business.
Well, about that
Why_MeAMD didn't cut prices after the release of the 11400F/11700F so what makes you think they'll cut them now?
Took the words right out of my mouth. The 11400 was consistently tied with the 5600x, occasionally faster, occasionally slower. Despit ebeing available for $189, this did not stop AMD from selling the 5600x at $300, and similarly it did not stop people from BUYING them constantly. Same thing, the i7-11700 being available at $329 did not slow down sales of the $450 5800x.

If you ask people hwy they still bought AMD, you'll usually get either "well $iNtEl BaD" or something about syhtetics or some production benchmark favoring AMD as to why they bought it for a gaming computer. For all the whinging the AMD community spouts over nvidia's "mindshare", they have no issue doing the same thing in reverse with CPUs. Go onto forums for AMD and ask about the 5600x, and there will be 10 ready to tell you how great it is for every 1 who points out how overpriced it is.

The ONLY thing that will force AMD to be competitive again is if intel starts cutting deep into sales, even then so long as sales are healthy AMD would likely keep the prices the same and shift some of that 7nm node into their GPUs that are woefully out of stock constantly.
Posted on Reply
#12
DeathtoGnomes
Why_MeAMD didn't cut prices after the release of the 11400F/11700F so what makes you think they'll cut them now?
Simple: AMD was in a different position at that time, now, its competing on more than just performance
TheinsanegamerNIf you ask people hwy they still bought AMD, you'll usually get either "well $iNtEl BaD" or something about syhtetics or some production benchmark favoring AMD as to why they bought it for a gaming computer. For all the whinging the AMD community spouts over nvidia's "mindshare", they have no issue doing the same thing in reverse with CPUs. Go onto forums for AMD and ask about the 5600x, and there will be 10 ready to tell you how great it is for every 1 who points out how overpriced it is.
I agree here, AMD was fighting for market share, still is but not so desperate now.
TheinsanegamerNThe ONLY thing that will force AMD to be competitive again is if intel starts cutting deep into sales, even then so long as sales are healthy AMD would likely keep the prices the same and shift some of that 7nm node into their GPUs that are woefully out of stock constantly.
This is what I said. As its been said over and over, Intel has done in the past that AMD is doing now with pricing. Supply chains could be a factor here for end point pricing, which still doesnt venture to far from MSRP. The question is not will AMD slash pricing, but when.
Posted on Reply
#13
Tigger
I'm the only one
People are stupidly loyal to AMD or Intel. Me i don't give a shit which i have as long as it is the quickest for the cost. Don't even give a shit if i switch and my PC uses more power. No point being stupidly loyal to either if you care about performance.
Posted on Reply
#14
BluesFanUK
I went ITX earlier this year and got my first ever AMD CPU, instant regret too. The system has a myriad of issues, AMD were even aware of the ones causing USB problems and to this day it's still not fully fixed for everyone... this is their third generation CPU too. Intel may be muddying the water a bit by just increasing power levels, but at least I know I can get a stable system from them.
Posted on Reply
#15
Minus Infinity
AMD will never slash prices, if you are lucky they will trim $50 off some models but then when Zen3+ come out will add $100 so they will still be much dearer than AL equivalents. AMD probably would argue discounting sends a clear message they are admitting their products are inferior and wouldn't be welcome by Wall St scum.

They won't have anything to compete against 12100/300, they showed profit was more important with Zen3, not even bothering to replace the 3100/3300, Probably internallly just decided 4 cores are a waste of their time and no one would want them and 6 cores was the new entry level even at stupidly high prices. I couldn't afford Zen 3 in Australia early this year, no way I was paying $200-300 more for price of admission than Zen 2, so just got a 3700X. Early 2023 I'll be upgrading my other PC from 1700X and unless Zen 4 greatly improves the price per performance ratio in Australia I'll probably go with Rocket Lake.
Posted on Reply
#16
Caring1
Minus InfinityAMD will never slash prices, if you are lucky they will trim $50 off some models but then when Zen3+ come out will add $100 so they will still be much dearer than AL equivalents. AMD probably would argue discounting sends a clear message they are admitting their products are inferior and wouldn't be welcome by Wall St scum.
No, just NO.
Dropping prices further would eat into their profit margin, it has nothing to do with admitting their product is inferior.
Intel undercut AMD intentionally with the 10400 and 11400 to gain market share on the low end of the market, that is all.
Posted on Reply
#17
Why_Me
Minus InfinityAMD will never slash prices, if you are lucky they will trim $50 off some models but then when Zen3+ come out will add $100 so they will still be much dearer than AL equivalents. AMD probably would argue discounting sends a clear message they are admitting their products are inferior and wouldn't be welcome by Wall St scum.

They won't have anything to compete against 12100/300, they showed profit was more important with Zen3, not even bothering to replace the 3100/3300, Probably internallly just decided 4 cores are a waste of their time and no one would want them and 6 cores was the new entry level even at stupidly high prices. I couldn't afford Zen 3 in Australia early this year, no way I was paying $200-300 more for price of admission than Zen 2, so just got a 3700X. Early 2023 I'll be upgrading my other PC from 1700X and unless Zen 4 greatly improves the price per performance ratio in Australia I'll probably go with Rocket Lake.
AMD is the debil.

www.jw.com.au/intel-core-i5-11400f-processor-502490
Intel Core i5 11400F $269.00 AUD

www.jw.com.au/amd-ryzen-5-5600x-processor-453761
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X $458.00 AUD
Posted on Reply
#18
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Caring1No, just NO.
Dropping prices further would eat into their profit margin, it has nothing to do with admitting their product is inferior.
Intel undercut AMD intentionally with the 10400 and 11400 to gain market share on the low end of the market, that is all.
Yup just a quad core...
Posted on Reply
#19
HisDivineOrder
Intel is the only hope we have in the GPU space for keeping GPU's anywhere even close to reasonable in MSRP's next gen and Intel is the only CPU vendor keeping things real on the cost/performance metric. What a time to be alive.
Posted on Reply
#20
TheoneandonlyMrK
Some drama ,you realise these are not released.

And quite the shill like following turned up, scarcely commenting on the product just denigrating the company they're not happy with, wow.
Posted on Reply
#21
DeathtoGnomes
TheoneandonlyMrKSome drama ,you realise these are not released.

And quite the shill like following turned up, scarcely commenting on the product just denigrating the company they're not happy with, wow.
paid schills expected to do just that, fandois as well.
Posted on Reply
#22
TheoneandonlyMrK
DeathtoGnomespaid schills expected to do just that, fandois as well.
I said like, I know they're not but the word's !?.
Posted on Reply
#23
Nephilim666
Have any of those saying the Intel platform is much better value actually priced up a system featuring them?
We're on the budget end of the price scale, Z690 motherboards are all that's available currently for LGA1700. You make up the price differential on the motherboard alone, then let's start talking about DDR5 (if you want that). AMD will only drop prices when the Intel offering is so compelling people stop buying AMD. They're both corporations with a duty to their shareholders. Historically speaking AMD is the less evil and anti-competitive of the two though, so many (myself included) feel they get some points in their favour for that.
Posted on Reply
#24
Why_Me
Nephilim666Have any of those saying the Intel platform is much better value actually priced up a system featuring them?
We're on the budget end of the price scale, Z690 motherboards are all that's available currently for LGA1700. You make up the price differential on the motherboard alone, then let's start talking about DDR5 (if you want that). AMD will only drop prices when the Intel offering is so compelling people stop buying AMD. They're both corporations with a duty to their shareholders. Historically speaking AMD is the less evil and anti-competitive of the two though, so many (myself included) feel they get some points in their favour for that.
Who's being forced to purchase an LGA 1700 DDR5 platform when LGA 1700 DDR4 is available? While we're at it what does AMD have to offer that competes with a 12100/12300 paired with an H610 board.

www.techpowerup.com/290116/intel-65-w-alder-lake-s-pricing-confirmed
Posted on Reply
#25
ratirt
5600x is around the same price as 12600K and that is the processor AMD's product is competing with. 12400 is not released yet and people are saying how AMD screwed up. I don't understand that and that is not the product it competes with putting gaming, as one and only valid metric for a processor. Not to mention, Intel boards are quite short in supply and DDR5 mem so expensive. It just doesn't add up to some people to go Intel at this point.
In terms of gaming. If you play 1440p, the difference between AMD and Intel is barely there across the board.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment