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

#78
Why_Me
ARFErr, the advertising campaign by Intel is strong. The force is strong with them to make sure that you will spend that money. lol.
There's a reason consumers shouldn't purchase hardware before the reviews from sites such as this one.
Posted on Reply
#79
ARF
Why_MeThere's a reason consumers shouldn't purchase hardware before the reviews from sites such as this one.
Nah, I wouldn't anyway because there are AMD Ryzens to be bought.
Posted on Reply
#80
Why_Me
ARFNah, I wouldn't anyway because there are AMD Ryzens to be bought.
I'm not rich but I enjoy PC gaming so AMD is an afterthought for me at best.
Posted on Reply
#81
TheoneandonlyMrK
Why_MeI'm not rich but I enjoy PC gaming so AMD is an afterthought for me at best.
Honestly have a word with yourself, you want me to post you some cheap CPU from both teams, best ,worse , at the bottom end , works well is more than enough often, these might kurb stomp the world but if the world still turns and we still know of people using 2500Ks I'd say your version of shit actually isn't if you don't have a Borgeoi perspective, many kids this year got a pc they have no clue about that's doing well, why?!.

I know.
Posted on Reply
#82
Chrispy_
QuietBobNot only that, but the 53x0G/GE also suck in comparison with the 3300X. If you look at my benchmark results, an overclocked 3300X goes neck and neck with them in both ST and MT. In few other benchmarks they are up to 10% faster. Not what I would call a generational uplift. Also, they can't be overclocked and are limited to OEM market as of now.

In honesty, these budget Zen 3 APUs offer no competition to Zen 2 quads, never mind the upcoming Alder Lake i3 line. Unless AMD introduces a new low price alternative, they'll have nothing to rival Intel in this segment.
AMD and AMD fans alike will claim that the performance uplift from Zen2 to Zen3 was various architectural tweaks and hard work.
I am a cynic and I firmly believe that most of the gains were from unifying and therefore expanding the effective cache size per core. It was low-hanging fruit and the OS-scheduler issues with two CCXs not sharing the L3 cache were initially rectified in software but the added benefit of unifying the cache not only removed the reliance on the schedular but also doubled the effective cache per core.
  • The main reason AL is good is more cache.
  • The main reason Zen3 is good is more cache.
  • AMD's counterargument to AL is more cache.
Call me a cynic, but I think cache is really goddamn important for IPC and the APUs are cache-starved which, coincidentally, aligns with their performance deficit.

Perhaps it's not that simple; perhaps I'm confusing causation with correlation; Who cares? What matters right now is that (until proven otherwise) cache size per core is absolutely the key metric for a high-performing CPU.
Posted on Reply
#83
seth1911
thelawnetWell here for example:

Pentium G6405 1050 rp
Athlon 3000G: 1300 rp
10105F: 1200
10400F: 2025
11600K: 3900
Ryzen 5600G: 3900
12600K: 4700

GT 1030 GDDR5 (cheapest new card): 1900.

So compared to the 10400F + GT 1030 the 5600G is a better CPU and similar graphics, and cheaper, and compared to the 11600K it's about the same, the same price and much better IGP. Compare to the 12600K it's cheaper, loses on performance which is fair but still GPU is expensive.

And of course with cheaper motherboards the 3000G 's a far better gaming solution for basic games than the Pentium and the cost works out about the same.

With the total overpricing of all GPUs and the dreadful performance of Intel's IGP, then the Athlon is useful in developing countries.

This is still based on double priced GPUs, unfortuantely, but AMD remain relevant especially with the 12100 and 12300 not actually available yet
This isnt true, a GT 1030 GDDR5 perform better than the IGP on the 5600G,
the second one is: On the 10400F u can use 0815 Value Ram while u need DDR4000+ for the 5600G IGP which cost nearly 40 - 50% more than Value Ram.

And what did u mean with RP (RP is for Indonesian Rupia) ? and that cant be true cause 1050rp are 9 Cents

A real compare:

11 400F 151€
16GB DDR4 2933 56€
H 510 with 1x M2 61€
GT 1030 GDDR5 89€
-----------------------------
357€


2600G 258€
16GB 4000 86€
A520 64€
-----------------------
408€
Posted on Reply
#85
GURU7OF9
TiggerPeople 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.
i am with you on this totally! thats how i buy my gaming parts! best bang for buck always! mostly they are Intel and sometimes AMD as is now! Alderlake was not out 12 months ago and it is too expensive for mb and ram atm!
Posted on Reply
#86
Why_Me
GURU7OF9i am with you on this totally! thats how i buy my gaming parts! best bang for buck always! mostly they are Intel and sometimes AMD as is now! Alderlake was not out 12 months ago and it is too expensive for mb and ram atm!
Alder Lake locked cpu's are due for release January 6th and BTW last time I checked DDR4 didn't cost more for Alder Lake then it does for any other platform.
Posted on Reply
#87
GURU7OF9
Why_MeAlder Lake locked cpu's are due for release January 6th and BTW last time I checked DDR4 didn't cost more for Alder Lake then it does for any other platform.
Did i not infer i built new pc only 12 months ago?
Yeah but ddr 4 for Alderlake seems pointless for future proofing. PCIe 5.0 and DDR5 are the way of the future ! Asus are working on an adapter ddr5 to ddr4.
But i would rather wait for 12 months and let everything settle. DDR5 speeds will increase and, prices will hopefully come down and it will all mature! Then you will really see some good gains with DDR5.
Tbh I can't really see massive benefit for gaming upgrading my current system to Alderlake . Kinda pointless, would want to be a big jump. Plus I don't have the money to waste atm.
Def not interested in non k cpu.
Also when Ryzen zen 4 and Raptorlake are both out we shall see how they both compare.
Should be very interesting!
Posted on Reply
#88
Why_Me
GURU7OF9Did i not infer i built new pc only 12 months ago?
Yeah but ddr 4 for Alderlake seems pointless for future proofing. PCIe 5.0 and DDR5 are the way of the future ! Asus are working on an adapter ddr5 to ddr4.
But i would rather wait for 12 months and let everything settle. DDR5 speeds will increase and, prices will hopefully come down and it will all mature! Then you will really see some good gains with DDR5.
Tbh I can't really see massive benefit for gaming upgrading my current system to Alderlake . Kinda pointless, would want to be a big jump. Plus I don't have the money to waste atm.
Def not interested in non k cpu.
Also when Ryzen zen 4 and Raptorlake are both out we shall see how they both compare.
Should be very interesting!
Future proofing for a platform that won't be mainstream for another 3 years while getting hosed on RAM prices makes no sense imo.
Posted on Reply
#89
GURU7OF9
Why_MeFuture proofing for a platform that won't be mainstream for another 3 years while getting hosed on RAM prices makes no sense imo.
Hence DDR5 to DDR4 adapter! But you would want to see how it performs first !
But you still ignore my initial comment i already built myself a new system 12 months ago and Alder lake won't be much faster for gaming than what I already have, so why would I bother switching now !
Just a waste of money for me !
Posted on Reply
#90
Tigger
I'm the only one
GURU7OF9Hence DDR5 to DDR4 adapter! But you would want to see how it performs first !
But you still ignore my initial comment i already built myself a new system 12 months ago and Alder lake won't be much faster for gaming than what I already have, so why would I bother switching now !
Just a waste of money for me !
I already had 32gb of good DDR4 and the price and availability of DDR5 was absurd. I am still very much enjoying the 12700k even without DDR5.
Posted on Reply
#91
GURU7OF9
TiggerI already had 32gb of good DDR4 and the price and availability of DDR5 was absurd. I am still very much enjoying the 12700k even without DDR5.
Yeah I get it, but I spent bit over $2k approx 12 months ago on a complete upgrade with
ryzen 5600x cm hyper 212 black rgb,
msi x570 tomahawk
32gb 4x8 gskill ripjaw V F4-3600c16d-gvk
rtx 2070 super
Samsung 970 evo 500gb M.2
rm 850w corsair psu,
fractal design define 5 case .
I tweaked it here and there :) .
I had to relearn everything but that's ok.
I didnt want to spend much on it .
I'm very happy with it, runs really well no issues and good temps always under 70C for everything!
I was going to buy a rtx3080 but they were hard to get so I thought I would wait. I only game at 1920x1080 anyway.
Upgraded from 2600k @4.6ghz gtx 970 in sli 16gb 2x8gb etc . So no matter what i got it was going to massive boost !
Posted on Reply
#92
Tigger
I'm the only one
GURU7OF9Yeah I get it, but I spent bit over $2k approx 12 months ago on a complete upgrade with
ryzen 5600x cm hyper 212 black rgb,
msi x570 tomahawk
32gb 4x8 gskill ripjaw V F4-3600c16d-gvk
rtx 2070 super
rm 850w corsair psu,
fractal design define 5 case .
I tweaked it here and there :) .
I had to relearn everything but that's ok.
I didnt wanted to spend much on it .
I'm very happy with it, runs really well no issues and good temps always under 70C for everything!
I was going to buy a rtx3080 but they were hard to get so I thought I would wait. I only game at 1920x1080 anyway.
Upgraded from 2600k @4.6ghz gtx 970 in sli 16gb 2x8gb etc . So no matter what i got it was going to massive boost !
I'm only gaming at 1080P myself, on a 32" 165hz MSI monitor. Might change this year to 1440, hoping to actually get a better GPU to go with the 12700k.

Think i have just spent about £1300 on chip, board, case, cpu block, pump/res, Radiator, fans.
Posted on Reply
#94
GURU7OF9
TiggerI'm only gaming at 1080P myself, on a 32" 165hz MSI monitor. Might change this year to 1440, hoping to actually get a better GPU to go with the 12700k.

Think i have just spent about £1300 on chip, board, case, cpu block, pump/res, Radiator, fans.
I'm playing on Acer XB241H 24 " 144hz TN panel . That is the best thing I have bought in the last 5 yrs . Makes playing fast moving fps shooters like quake live sooooo smoooth !
Picture quality is way better than I thought it would be.
Not as good as IPS but still quite good !
I would have thought 1080p on 32 inch would be quite blocky ?
Posted on Reply
#95
Tigger
I'm the only one
GURU7OF9I'm playing on Acer XB241H 24 " 144hz TN panel . That is the best thing I have bought in the last 5 yrs . Makes playing fast moving fps shooters like quake live sooooo smoooth !
Picture quality is way better than I thought it would be.
Not as good as IPS but still quite good !
I would have thought 1080p on 32 inch would be quite blocky ?
TBH it is acceptable for me for now. I should really have got a 27" 1080 but this was so cheap so had to buy it. Here is a 1080p photo from my screen, not sure if you will be able to tell though.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment