Intel has launched their i3-10100 processor, but how does it stack up against AMD’s recently
launched Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X processors at similar price points?
Let’s see what the differences are in games and applications and see which is worth it
for the money.
All three processors have 4 cores and 8 threads with a 65 watt TDP, granted those aren’t
really directly comparable.
Both Ryzen CPUs have more than double the cache of the Intel option, and the base clock
of the i3 matches the 3100, while the boost clock of the i3 matches the 3300X.
Both the 3100 and 3300X have a single CCD, however the 3300X has 4 cores within the same
CCX while the 3100 has 2 cores per CCX.
Basically this means core-to-core latency is higher in the 3100 and we’re expecting
it to be slower.
I’m comparing these processors because the price for the Ryzen 3 3100 is meant to be
$100 USD, the Ryzen 3 3300X is meant to be $120 USD, and the Intel i3-10100 is listed
as $122 in quantities of 1000, so it’ll probably be more like $130 to $140 USD at
a guess.
Unfortunately US pricing isn’t available at the time of recording as it’s still not
for sale yet in the US, but you can refer to updated pricing linked in the description
once it’s available.
Regardless, the prices of these parts should in theory be quite close to make for an interesting
comparison.
All processors were tested in the same system, however I’ve had to change motherboards
between Intel and AMD platforms.
For the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X, I’ve tested with the ASRock X570 Taichi and for
the Intel i3-10100 I’ve used the MSI Z490 ACE motherboard.
The rest of the components were otherwise the same, I’ve tested with 16gb of DDR4-3200
memory running in dual channel at CL14 and with an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti to reduce GPU bottlenecks.
Although both chips come with a stock cooler, I haven’t tested with that.
I’ve used the same Fractal S36 AIO with Noctua NT-H1 paste for all CPUs so we can
get an apples to apples temperature comparison.
Testing was completed with the latest version of Windows and Nvidia drivers along with all
BIOS updates available installed.
With that in mind we’ll first check out the differences in various applications, as
well as power draw and thermals, followed by gaming tests at 1080p and 1440p resolutions
afterwards, then finish up by comparing some performance per dollar metrics.
Starting with Cinebench R20, I’ve got the Intel i3-10100 processor down the bottom and
highlighted in blue, the Ryzen 3 3100 in the middle, and the 3300X up the top.
In this test, the i3 was just one point ahead of the 3100 in terms of single core performance,
however the 3100 had a 7% higher multicore score.
The 3300X on the other hand had a 12% higher single core score and a 19% gain in multicore
performance over the i3.
I’ve also tested the older Cinebench R15 as a lot of people still use it, and the results
were similar, with the i3 ahead of the 3100 in single core performance, but 3300X scoring
10% higher than the i3 in single core, while both Ryzen processors were ahead of the i3
in multicore.
I’ve tested the Blender BMW and Classroom benchmarks, and as a core heavy workload,
the Ryzen processors were also completing these tasks faster.
The 3100 was only 1.5% faster in the BMW test, while the 3300X had a much larger 15% lead.
In the longer classroom test, the 3100 was slightly faster at 4%, while the 3300X was
now 17% faster than the i3.
Handbrake was used to convert one of my 4K laptop review videos to 1080p with the HQ
1080p30 preset, and as another program that leverages additional threads, the i3-10100
was the slowest out of the three, while the difference was much smaller between the 3100
and 3300X.
Adobe Premiere was used to export one of my laptop review videos at 4K, and I’ve used
VBR 2 pass so all were running for over an hour.
Again the 10100 was the slowest of the bunch, the 3100 completed the task 8% faster while
the 3300X was 18.5% faster than the i3.
Premiere was also tested using the Puget systems benchmark tool, as another test that favours
multicore performance, the 3100 was scoring 5.5% higher than the i3, while the 3300X was
scoring 14% higher than the i3.
I’ve also tested the warp stabilizer effect in Adobe Premiere which is a less threaded
workload and is used to smooth out a video clip.
I thought the better single core performance with the i3 would help it out here, but that
was not the case as it was taking the longest to complete the task.
I’ve used the Puget Systems Photoshop benchmark, and as a test that is able to take advantage
of single core performance, the i3-10100 was able to reach a 4% higher score than the 3100.
The i3 couldn’t beat the 3300X though, which was scoring 12% higher.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds, a workload that Ryzen generally beats
Intel in from my prior testing, and that was again the case here where both the 3100 and
3300x were 12 to 30% faster than the i3 depending on the specific test.
AES encryption and decryption is another workload that Ryzen generally seems to win at when
compared to Intel.
In the VeraCrypt benchmark the 3100 was around 14% faster than the i3, while the 3300X was
25% faster.
The V-Ray benchmark uses the CPU to render out a scene, and as another multicore test,
the i3 was behind the Ryzen processors, although the 3100 was only scoring 2% ahead of the
i3, one of the smallest margins out of all tests, though the 3300X had a larger 20% higher
score.
The Corona benchmark also uses the processor to render out a scene, and although this is
another multicore test, the i3 was completing the task 10 seconds faster than the 3100,
though the 3300X was 21 seconds faster than the i3.
I’ve used the Hardware Unboxed Microsoft Excel test, and the i3-10100 was taking the
longest to complete this large number crunch workload.
GeekBench 5 single core scores saw the i3 beat the 3100 as we’ve seen in a number
of other tests, however the multicore score was 4% higher on the 3100.
These are the differences between the Ryzen 3 3100 and Intel i3-10100 in all of these
applications tested.
As we can see, results can really vary based on the specific workload, however the 3100
was winning in most cases.
The i3 is ahead in the single core tests, and just one of the multicore tests.
This is how the 3300X stacks up against the i3-10100.
The 3300X was ahead in all cases here, even single core performance was at least 10% faster
than the i3 processor, but again results can vary significantly between specific tests.
I think this is a pretty good result considering the 3300X should be cheaper than the i3.
Just quickly here’s how much faster the 3300X was when compared to the 3100 in these
same tests.
When we look at the total system power draw from the wall the i3-10100 was actually using
the least amount in the blender test, though it was also performing the slowest in blender
so that seems reasonable.
As the i3 is using less power, it’s not surprising that it was also cooler than the
rest, granted it was basically the same as the 3100, the 3300X was much warmer comparatively,
but expect different results with the stock coolers.
I’ve used the same Fractal S36 AIO here for comparable results.
Although not exactly directly comparable, the i3 was running at higher clock speeds
than the 3100 in this same blender workload.
Given the 3100 was faster in this test, I think this perhaps illustrates the performance
per clock of Ryzen 3000, as the i3 completes the task slower while being clocked higher,
though other differences like cache may be coming into effect.
I’ve only tested the Ryzen processors with the auto OC option in the Ryzen master software,
which made minimal difference.
With some manual tuning though it is possible to get more gains, while the i3 does not support
overclocking.
Let’s get into the gaming results next, I’ve tested 15 games at both 1080p and 1440p
resolutions.
As a reminder I’m using the RTX 2080 Ti to reduce GPU bottlenecks, the goal of these
numbers is not to show you what sort of frame rates to expect from these processors with
more reasonable GPUs, it’s to compare the processors against each other.
Battlefield V was tested running through the same section of the game in campaign mode.
I’ve got the 1080p results down the bottom, the 1440p results above, and again I’ve
highlighted the i3 in blue.
In this test the i3 was ahead of the 3300X at either resolution in 1% lows, also in average
FPS at 1440p, though slightly behind at 1080p in the averages, but either way the two were
quite close, while the cheaper 3100 is further behind.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested with the games benchmark tool, and the results
here were kind of similar with the 3300x ahead in average FPS at 1080p, but then a little
further behind once we step up to 1440p, though the 1% low at 1440p on the 3300X dropped back
a fair bit giving an edge to the i3.
Call of Duty modern warfare was tested in campaign mode, and is a game that I’ve recently
found to favour the Ryzen processors, especially in terms of 1% low performance as I was noticing
occasional stuttering while performing this test on the i3.
At 1080p even the cheaper 3100 is beating the i3 in both 1% low and average FPS.
Borderlands 3 was tested using the games built in benchmark.
The average frame rates between the 3300X and 10100 were very close together at either
resolution, though the 3300X had a subtle lead in the 1% low, granted this is within
the margin of error range.
Control was tested by performing the same test pass through the game in all instances,
and there was basically no significant difference between the three processors here at either
resolution, at least with the high graphical setting preset I’m testing with.
Red Dead Redemption 2 was tested using the games benchmark tool, and it was a win for
the i3 at both resolutions, however it’s a small lead, just 2% faster at 1080p and
almost 4% faster at 1440p.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was also tested with the games benchmark tool, so no 1% low
data here unfortunately.
This time the 3300X was slightly ahead, though only by 2-3 FPS on average.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested using the built in benchmark with Vulkan.
At 1080p the 3300X and 10100 are very close together, a couple FPS higher in the 1% low
on the Ryzen chip, while the Intel chip was a couple FPS higher in the averages.
At 1440p though, the two Ryzen options are about the same, while the i3 has a noteworthy
improvement in the 1% low.
CS:GO was tested using the Ulletical FPS benchmark, and the 3300X was performing best in this
test.
The i3 was closer to the 3100 for the most part as the 3300X had an 18% higher average
FPS at 1080p over the i3, lowering to a 9% higher frame rate at 1440p.
Dota 2 was tested playing in the middle lane and was again performing a fair bit better
on the 3300X both in terms of 1% low and average FPS.
The i3-10100 was closer to the 3100 in this test, however it did still maintain a small
lead in all aspects.
Overwatch was tested in the practice range, and while this runs better than actual gameplay,
it more easily allows me to perform the exact same test run, which is ideal for a comparison
like this.
There wasn’t much difference regardless of processor, at least not one you’re likely
to notice while actually playing the game.
The Division 2 was tested using the games benchmark tool, and once more the 3300X and
10100 were quite close together, just a couple of FPS either way at both resolutions for
average and 1% low performance.
The Witcher 3 was tested running through the same section of the game, and again the 3300X
and 10100 were quite close together.
The i3 is just 1-2 FPS faster in the averages with a little higher in the 1% lows, particularly
at 1080p where we’re presumably a bit less GPU heavy.
Ghost Recon Breakpoint was tested with the games built in benchmark, and yet again the
3300X and i3-10100 were very close together, just a few FPS apart worst case and probably
not really a difference you’d notice.
The i3 was 1 FPS higher at 1080p, and 3 higher at 1440p, so yeah nothing major.
Far Cry New Dawn was also tested with the games built in benchmark, this time we’ve
got a clear win for the Intel i3-10100, as is typically the case in this game.
Ryzen processors just can’t seem to match Intel in this test, and as a result at 1080p
the i3 is almost 10% faster in average frame rate, and 9% higher at 1440p.
On average out of these 15 games tested, the Intel i3-10100 was 9% faster in average FPS
when compared against the cheaper Ryzen 3 3100, basically only call of duty modern warfare
was performing better on the 3100 out of the selection of games tested.
1% low is perhaps more important when it comes to processor comparisons, though the i3 had
a similar lead here, 10% faster on average when compared to the Ryzen 3 3100.
If we look at the 1440p results, the i3’s lead over the 3100 lowers a little to under
6% higher on average, as the processor starts to matter less and less as we increase the
resolution.
Now let’s compare the i3 against the 3300X, as this is where things get interesting.
At 1080p, on average in these same 15 games the 10100 was 2.5% slower than the 3300X on
average.
Basically Far Cry New Dawn is the main game holding up the i3’s score, without it the
other titles that get an improvement on the i3 are seeing less than a two percent boost.
Of particular interest to me was that both Dota2 and CS:GO were performing significantly
better on the 3300X, so budget conscious esports players may want to take note.
When we look at the differences in 1% low performance, the i3 is still a similar amount
slower than the 3300X, that large call of duty result is definitely giving the 3300X
an edge here, but even looking at the rest of the games the results go one way or the
other by similar amounts.
Once we step up to 1440p the i3 is now just 0.2% slower, so on average they’re basically
even, however those esports titles were still helping out the 3300X.
Based on these results, processor selection between the Ryzen 3 3300X and Intel i3-10100
hardly seems to matter in games on average.
There are of course some games that heavily favour Intel like Far Cry, while others like
COD seem to prefer the 3300X, so although results can vary a fair bit for specific games,
once we take the averages from 15 games they’re quite close.
When we take the costs into consideration, the 3100 is the best in terms of pure value,
though as we just saw it was performing the worst out of these options.
What I think is the most interesting is that not only is the 3300X beating the i3 in games,
it’s doing so at a lower dollar per frame value.
If we measure based on 1% low performance instead of averages, the 3300X is still ahead,
granted much closer together at 1440p than at 1080p.
I also need to note the $122 USD price of the i3 here is absolute best case and likely
not going to happen, as mentioned earlier I just don’t have pricing for it as it’s
still not for sale, but I’d expect it to be closer to the $130 to $140 price point
which would make the value even worse.
At the same time though, the 3300X is currently difficult to buy, and although Newegg still
has it listed at $120 USD, it’s out of stock and third party sellers are trying to make
a profit by asking for crazy prices, so we might have to wait a while for things to settle.
Again you can refer to updated prices in the description once available.
Don’t forget that outside of gaming the 3300X was beating the i3-10100 by even larger
margins, so that combined with the slight win in gaming for an in theory cheaper price
is why I’m giving it the win.
The i3 easily beat the cheaper 3100 in gaming though, and in our apps the i3 was also better
in terms of single core performance, however if you just need multicore performance for
say rendering, it’s doing better than the i3 there for less money.
Although I’m trying to compare apples to apples here, fact is if you want faster memory
with the i3 like I’ve tested with here, you’re going to have to spend more for a
Z490 motherboard too whereas even good value B450 boards will allow you to use faster memory
with XMP profiles with the 3300X, so that would further make the i3-10100 worse off
in terms of total cost.
In terms of future upgradability, both platforms should have some options.
AMD recently confirmed that B450 and X470 boards will have support for Zen3, although
it will depend on motherboard vendors to decide which boards to provide this update for.
Even if you don’t go Zen3, with a mid range B450 board it’s still possible to upgrade
all the way up to the 16 core 3950X in future.
Intel 10th gen requires new motherboards, and while it’s assumed that these will also
support 11th gen, there isn’t currently solid confirmation on this, but if your motherboard
is decent you could at least go up to the 10900K in future.
As already mentioned, the i3 cannot be overclocked while the Ryzen options can be, so it’s
possible to get some more performance there too.
Additionally, Ryzen offers faster PCIe 4.0 support, while Intel 10th gen uses PCIe 3.0.
At the end of the day, I think we as consumers are winning here.
AMD’s competitive processors are clearly one of the main reasons that Intel has brought
back hyperthreading with their 10th generation processors, as it was missing from the 9th
gen in all but the top end i9 series.
Let me know if you want to see this new 10100 compared with the 9100 in a future video to
see the difference hyperthreading gets us.
Based on all of this information, out of the three I’d go for the 3300X if it’s available
without being over priced, but let me know which CPU you’d pick and why down in the
comments, Intel’s i3-10100 or AMD’s Ryzen 3 3100 or 3300X?
And if you’re new to the channel then get subscribed for all my upcoming 10th gen processor
comparisons.