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

#26
Why_Me
ratirt5600x 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.
Is LGA 1700 DDR4 any good for gaming?

Posted on Reply
#27
ratirt
Why_MeIs LGA 1700 DDR4 any good for gaming?

Oh boy. So what are you trying to prove? That you can play games with Intel and DDR4? Great. You are missing the point as usual.
Posted on Reply
#28
Why_Me
ratirtOh boy. So what are you trying to prove? That you can play games with Intel and DDR4? Great. You are missing the point as usual.
You mentioned DDR5 memory being expensive almost as if there was no DDR4 alternative for LGA 1700.
Posted on Reply
#29
ratirt
Why_MeYou mentioned DDR5 memory being expensive almost as if there was no DDR4 alternative for LGA 1700.
Sure I did. I also mentioned other stuff but I guess DDR4 is the most important one here to point out and of course gaming at 1080p with 3090 according to your graph.
Never said there's no alternative. But you know. New platform new Ram? No?
Posted on Reply
#30
Why_Me
ratirtSure I did. I also mentioned other stuff but I guess DDR4 is the most important one here to point out and of course gaming at 1080p with 3090 according to your graph.
Never said there's no alternative. But you know. New platform new Ram? No?
It would be foolish imo to move to DDR5 right now hence the reason most of the Alder Lake builds you see on internet forums are DDR4. With that said the 3090 was used at 1080P making the games cpu dependant ... tbh I thought that was common knowledge for most gamers.
Posted on Reply
#31
Taraquin
It`s ironical that 2,5 years ago AMD was the budget king with 3200G, 3600 etc which outperformed Intel on price to performance, even though Intel still held the gaming crown. Today AMD don`t have any good budget options (they could have released the 5300g for consumers and had good fight vs i3 10100), the 5600X and 5800X should have costed 100usd less. I`m wondering how things goes with Zen 3D. Hopefully they have a good budgetoption available again soon.
Posted on Reply
#32
ratirt
Why_MeIt would be foolish imo to move to DDR5 right now hence the reason most of the Alder Lake builds you see on internet forums are DDR4. With that said the 3090 was used at 1080P making the games cpu dependant ... tbh I thought that was common knowledge for most gamers.
I never disagreed with you it is just you missed my point and now it is too late to talk about it over again.
I was referring to an earlier post about certain conclusion which I have but you went to tell something totally different. It is OK.
Posted on Reply
#33
Taraquin
Why_MeIt would be foolish imo to move to DDR5 right now hence the reason most of the Alder Lake builds you see on internet forums are DDR4. With that said the 3090 was used at 1080P making the games cpu dependant ... tbh I thought that was common knowledge for most gamers.
It was like this with DDR2, DDR3 etc. First year or so there was no benefit of jumping to next gen since early ICs were crap and slower\more expensive than good last gen. Hopefully when Zen4\Raptor lake rolls out DDR5 has matured and availability is okay. Maybe B-die has launched then (since next B-die will be the second revision Samsung makes after the current DDR5-A-die).
Posted on Reply
#34
Crackong
It is so weird seeing Steve claiming the PCI-E x16 is locked by Intel so proper gaming benchmark is impossible while this guy claiming "AMD total lost" using the same type of ES/QS chips.

Maybe GN Steve should learn from this guy how to unlock the CPU PCI-E x16 capability on 12th gen ES chips ?

I trust Steve more. :)
Posted on Reply
#35
GURU7OF9
HisDivineOrderIntel 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.
I cannot see Intel selling off their brand new shiny GPUs for el cheapo ! IT JUST WONT HAPPEN !
The market is such that they have struck gold with such a shortage of everything GPU related.
If you expect Intel to sell their higher end GPUs at bargain prices, Think Illuminati, Coincidence - THINK AGAIN !
They may be marginally cheaper than AMD /Nvidia at best!
INTEL lurvvvvvvs $$$$$$ Dont blame them really ! Why would you, when you dont really need to at all!
Posted on Reply
#36
watzupken
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.
I think if you look at the current state of Intel processor sales, even with the Alder Lake clearly beating the Ryzen 5000 series, ADL chips are not flying off the shelves. There are too many hurdles to adopt ADL at the moment, with software support being one of them. So you can see during the holiday season, Ryzen chips still dominate the top sales.
Things may improve for Intel with CPUs without E-cores, and cheaper motherboard options that goes well with cheaper DDR4 memory since DDR5 is either ultra expensive or non-existent. We may see AMD starting to cut price then. I believe AMD is not cutting prices drastically now since it is obvious the CPUs are still selling well, and the cost of manufacturing these chips is not cheap (TSMC have increased prices). Assuming the retail chips are not selling well, they can always divert those resources to making high profit margin products like the EPYC lineup. Intel's current CPU lineup for corporate/ data center is still not competitive. I feel they are trying to make as much as they can with each release since competition is going to get very heated in the upcoming years.
Posted on Reply
#37
GURU7OF9
Why_MeIs LGA 1700 DDR4 any good for gaming?

I get it, Intel is faster for gaming using Alderlake. I dont get why Toms Hardware has started using Overclocked Benchmarking scores in the last 12 months or so ? Where is the logic in that? I get the impression when Intel was a bit off the pace, they were strongly encouraged to make Intel look better! Sounds like some typical Skull duggery going on once again! Coincidence - THINK AGAIN !
Posted on Reply
#38
Why_Me
GURU7OF9I cannot see Intel selling off their brand new shiny GPUs for el cheapo ! IT JUST WONT HAPPEN !
The market is such that they have struck gold with such a shortage of everything GPU related.
If you expect Intel to sell their higher end GPUs at bargain prices, Think Illuminati, Coincidence - THINK AGAIN !
They may be marginally cheaper than AMD /Nvidia at best!
INTEL lurvvvvvvs $$$$$$ Dont blame them really ! Why would you, when you dont really need to at all!
;)

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

www.techpowerup.com/290116/intel-65-w-alder-lake-s-pricing-confirmed
Posted on Reply
#39
watzupken
TaraquinIt`s ironical that 2,5 years ago AMD was the budget king with 3200G, 3600 etc which outperformed Intel on price to performance, even though Intel still held the gaming crown. Today AMD don`t have any good budget options (they could have released the 5300g for consumers and had good fight vs i3 10100), the 5600X and 5800X should have costed 100usd less. I`m wondering how things goes with Zen 3D. Hopefully they have a good budgetoption available again soon.
No for profit company will remain as the budget option willingly. The CEO will immediately get fired. AMD who is the underdog at that time, had to make an entry somewhere, and therefore, use price as one of the "carrot" to entice people to try. I believe AMD did not release a cheaper version of their Zen 3 chip are due to,
1. Lack of competition - Intel recycled their Comet Lake chips to be used as the budget option. Compared to the Ryzen 3 3300X, the Comet Lake chip may perform just as well, but is no danger to the Ryzen 3 lineup

2. High fab cost - Zen 3 was launched in the same year as the start of COVID, so I believe the shortage then was already causing prices of fab to increase quite a lot. So instead of using perfectly usable singe CCX chip that will at least qualify as a 5600X, cutting it to 4 cores is going to be a waste when it comes to profit margin

3. In addition, I suspect the market for quad core desktop chip is shrinking, and most buyers tend to go for 6 cores, especially for the enthusiasts market. Also, they can always fill OEM orders with APUs where quad core option is available.
Why_MeYou mentioned DDR5 memory being expensive almost as if there was no DDR4 alternative for LGA 1700.
There are, but there are 2 problems,
1. Very limited choices - Initially, I was very excited with ADL, so I started looking out for a MITX board that supports DDR4. The options are extremely limited, depending in the form factor. So if you are trying to get a MATX and ITX board, there are only a handful

2. Poor availability/ high price - Due to poor availability of DDR5, some early adopters have turned to DDR4 boards. As a result, I've seen inflated prices for boards support DDR4. Again if one is looking for a MATX or ITX board, you may not even find available stock. The Gigabyte Z690i board (poor review results aside) cost as much as the DDR5 version in my country, and it ain't cheap.
Posted on Reply
#40
Nephilim666
Why_MeWho'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
AMD have all the products currently available for sale to compete with the Intel products you listed which aren't for sale yet. I suggest you read my comment again, specifically the bold part.
Posted on Reply
#41
TheoneandonlyMrK
Why_MeAMD 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
Why_Me;)

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

www.techpowerup.com/290116/intel-65-w-alder-lake-s-pricing-confirmed
Soo your just repeating yourself now, any chance you might get on topic and quit BS.
Cos your ,no buy Intel shits boring, no one's talking about these chips anymore here wtaf.
Posted on Reply
#42
DeathtoGnomes
watzupkenI think if you look at the current state of Intel processor sales, even with the Alder Lake clearly beating the Ryzen 5000 series, ADL chips are not flying off the shelves. There are too many hurdles to adopt ADL at the moment, with software support being one of them. So you can see during the holiday season, Ryzen chips still dominate the top sales.
Things may improve for Intel with CPUs without E-cores, and cheaper motherboard options that goes well with cheaper DDR4 memory since DDR5 is either ultra expensive or non-existent. We may see AMD starting to cut price then. I believe AMD is not cutting prices drastically now since it is obvious the CPUs are still selling well, and the cost of manufacturing these chips is not cheap (TSMC have increased prices). Assuming the retail chips are not selling well, they can always divert those resources to making high profit margin products like the EPYC lineup. Intel's current CPU lineup for corporate/ data center is still not competitive. I feel they are trying to make as much as they can with each release since competition is going to get very heated in the upcoming years.
Something to consider, ADLs low sale could be; 1) a slow adaption of Ecores, 2) failed understanding of the big-little concept leading consumers to go with OG designs.
Posted on Reply
#43
Why_Me
TheoneandonlyMrKSoo your just repeating yourself now, any chance you might get on topic and quit BS.
Cos your ,no buy Intel shits boring, no one's talking about these chips anymore here wtaf.
Prices mean something or am I wrong about that?
Posted on Reply
#44
TheoneandonlyMrK
Why_MePrices mean something or am I wrong about that?
What price's, they're not yet released or known.

The price of two alternative chips is pretty irrelevant to This thread IMHO

Plus repeating yourself proved what?!.

And you killed any discussion of these actual parts, it went tangential as FF.
Posted on Reply
#45
GURU7OF9
Why_Me;)

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

www.techpowerup.com/290116/intel-65-w-alder-lake-s-pricing-confirmed
These are all cpus i am specifically talking about gpus. Intel are locked in a big battle with AMD in the cpu space and trying to regain lost market share.
With gpus, they are the new kids on the block!
I can't see cheaper cpu prices translating in to cheaper gpu prices. With the current gpu shortages, Intel gpus would have to be really bad to be sold cheaply but so far reports seem to suggest they are going along very well for first up products.
But we will have to wait and see !
Posted on Reply
#47
TheoneandonlyMrK
Why_Mewww.techpowerup.com/290116/intel-65-w-alder-lake-s-pricing-confirmed
Fair enough so mention that instead of 11400f prices then.

Now on topic as I said earlier wtaf are they using Cb20 and not 23?!.

I benched a 3350g full system built with monitor mouse keyboard and headset sold by AWD-it for 570£ UK pounds that scored over 4000 on CB23 so if cheap is what your after a 5600x or 11400 is not as cheap as you Can go and still game well, obviously the igpu isn't part of that statement though it did game ok once tweaked, ish.
Posted on Reply
#48
Minus Infinity
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.
OMG company takes drastic measures to gain market share. And you somehow see that as a problem for Intel LOL. Sounds like a smart move, much more money is made at the low end than high end. All these forums would have you believe people only buy 5800/5900/5950X, but the opposite is true. If AMD had a 5300X it would outsell the 5800X easily. Intel squeezing AMD with complete product range and better price to performance ratio. I'm a huge fan of AMD but Intel has caught them by surprise and they need to lift their game. AMD probably assumed AL would at best match their performance.
Posted on Reply
#49
Caring1
Minus InfinityAnd you somehow see that as a problem for Intel LOL.
How did you interpret that from what I said?
I'm curious as to how I can help your comprehension skills.
Posted on Reply
#50
Chrispy_
seth1911AMD 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€
This.
Very hard to recommend AMD again, they've abandoned the most important market segment for long-term growth; budget general purpose CPUs that do everything.
HisDivineOrderIntel 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.
What makes you think Intel won't price their dGPUs to compete with AMD and Nvidia? If they perform like a 3070 they are going to be priced like a 3070.
Intel are a business, not a charity!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment