AMD has launched their new Ryzen 3 3100 for $100 USD, but how does the cheaper $75 i3-9100F
from Intel stack up?
Let’s see what the differences are in games and applications at stock and while overclocked
to see which is worth it.
Starting out with the specs, the new Ryzen 3100 is a 4 core 8 thread part, while the
Intel i3-9100F has 4 cores but 4 threads, so no hyperthreading there.
They both share the same base clock, however the 9100F has a higher single core turbo boost
speed.
The 3100 has more cache, though both have the same default 65 watt TDP, and I’m comparing
these two processors because they’re only priced $25 USD apart.
It’s worth noting that Intel is about to launch their 10th gen i3-10100 which does
have hyperthreading, so depending on the price that could change things up, make sure you’re
subscribed for my upcoming 10th gen comparisons.
Both CPUs were tested in the same system, however I’ve obviously had to change motherboards.
For the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 I’ve tested with the ASRock X570 Taichi and for the Intel i3-9100F
I’ve used the MSI Z390 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 both 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.
I’ve tested both CPUs at stock to start with, but the 3100 can be overclocked which
we’ll check out later.
Starting with Cinebench R20, I’ve got the Intel i3-9100F processor in the top bar, and
the newer AMD Ryzen 3 3100 in the bottom bar.
The 3100 has a 46% higher multicore score, however single core is much lower where it
just had a 5% lead.
I’ve also tested the older Cinebench R15 as a lot of people still use it, and the single
core performance was even closer together here with the 3100 scoring just 2% higher,
however when it came to multicore the 3100 was now a much higher 57% ahead.
I’ve tested the Blender BMW and Classroom benchmarks, and as a test that works better
with more threads it’s another win for the 3100 which was completing both tests faster.
It was 51% faster for the classroom test, then 46% faster in the shorter BMW test.
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 3100 was
able to complete the encode 44% faster than the 9100F.
Adobe Premiere was used to export one of my laptop review videos at 4K, and I’ve used
VBR 2 pass so both were running for over an hour.
In this test the 3100 was able to complete the task about 36% faster than the 9100F.
If you spend more on a 9100 with iGPU though, it could do better by utilizing quicksync.
Premiere was also tested using the Puget systems benchmark tool, and in this test the 3100
had a 50% higher score than the i3, and this score includes more than just export times
which is what we saw in the last graph, it also tests things like live playback.
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.
The 3100 was completing the task 16% faster, which was one of the lower differences out
of all applications tested.
Speaking of apps with smaller differences, Adobe Photoshop was also tested with the benchmark
from Puget systems, and the 3100 was only scoring 6% ahead of the i3-9100F.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds, a workload that Ryzen traditionally
demolishes Intel in.
The 3100 was 68% faster when it came to decompression, and 50% faster for compression.
AES encryption is another workload that Ryzen seems to thrive in when compared to Intel.
In the VeraCrypt test the 3100 was over 91% faster for both encryption and decryption
workloads, the biggest difference out of everything I’ve tested.
The V-Ray benchmark uses the CPU to render out a scene, and as another test that sees
a benefit from more threads, there’s a 41% higher score with the Ryzen 3 3100.
The Corona benchmark also uses the processor to render out a scene, again as another test
that scales with additional threads, the 3100 was able to complete the task 51% faster than
the 9100F.
I’ve used the Hardware Unboxed Microsoft Excel test, and the 3100 was able to complete
the big number crunch test 71% faster than the 9100F, making this one of the biggest
differences out of all applications tested, so that Ryzen chip might make a nice office
PC.
GeekBench 5 hardly saw much difference between the two when it came to single core performance,
the 3100 was just 1% faster, however there was a much larger difference to multicore,
where the 3100 was now 27% ahead of the 9100F, though this is on the lower side when compared
to most other multicore workloads tested.
These are the differences between the Ryzen 3 3100 and Intel i3-9100F in all of these
applications tested.
As we can see, results can really vary based on the specific workload, however the 3100
was coming out ahead in every single one of these tests, so both single and multicore
workloads.
The improvement seems fair and expected when you consider the 3100 costs about 33% more
money than the 9100F.
When we look at the total system power draw from the wall however, interestingly both
processors were running the blender test at 119 watts, but as we just saw, the blender
test was completing 46 to 51% faster on the Ryzen 3 3100, so it seems to be a fair bit
more efficient with the power it’s using.
Although not exactly directly comparable, the 3100 was running 100MHz slower in this
test.
Not only is the 3100 performing much better while using the same power, it’s also actually
running slightly cooler as well.
The difference wasn’t big though, and even under this CPU heavy workload both were running
quite cool, granted I am testing with a beefy cooler here, expect different results with
the stock coolers.
Like the 3300X in yesterday’s video, enabling the auto overclock feature through the Ryzen
Master software only gave us a little boost, the 3100 is already fairly tapped out at stock,
which I think is good for the majority of people that will probably end up buying a
lower end processor like this.
The 9100F does not support overclocking.
Let’s get into the gaming results next, I’ve tested 17 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, and the 1440p results above.
In this game the i3-9100F was coming out ahead in all instances, with a 13% higher average
FPS at 1080p, and 10% higher at 1440p.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested with the games benchmark tool, and the results
went the other way in this test, where the 3100 was in front in all instances.
The 3100 had a 23% higher average frame rate at 1080p, and was 27% higher at 1440p.
Call of Duty modern warfare was tested in campaign mode, and was another game that ran
better with the 3100.
The 1% low at 1080p wasn’t far behind even the average FPS from the 9100F, however the
differences are closer together once we step up to 1440p.
Borderlands 3 was tested using the games built in benchmark, and the 9100F was back in front
in this test, with a 7% higher average FPS at 1080p, and a little lower 6% increase at
1440p.
Apex Legends was tested with the Season 4 World’s Edge map running through the same
section of the game.
This game also appears to favour the Intel processor, at least in terms of average FPS,
the 1% low performance was much closer together with the 3100 actually slightly ahead at 1440p.
Control was also tested by performing the same test pass through the game in all instances,
and there was basically no significant difference between the two processors here at either
resolution, just an ever so slight lead by the i3 in most cases.
Red Dead Redemption 2 was tested using the games benchmark tool, and the 3100 was ahead
at both resolutions in average FPS.
The 3100 was 14% higher at 1080p, then had a 7% lead at 1440p.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was also tested with the games benchmark tool, so no 1% low
data here unfortunately.
The average FPS difference was much closer here, however the 3100 had the lead once more,
though just by 2 to 3 FPS.
Fortnite was tested using the replay feature with the exact same replay file on both processors.
The 9100F had a 6% lead in average frame rate at 1080p, though slightly lower 1% low result,
then the two chips were much closer together at 1440p.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested using the built in benchmark with Vulkan.
The average frame rates weren’t too different between the two, just a 2-3% lead by the 9100F,
though interestingly the 9100F has a 14% higher 1% low result at 1440p.
CS:GO was tested using the Ulletical FPS benchmark, and the results were basically the same with
either processor, no major differences one way or the other, a couple of FPS in either
direction.
Dota 2 was tested playing in the middle lane and was performing a fair bit better with
the 9100F, this game saw the second biggest improvement with the i3 out of all 17 titles
tested with a 15% higher average frame rate at 1080p, lowering slightly to a 13% lead
at 1440p.
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 to average FPS, however the 3100 had a nice boost to
1% lows at 1080p.
The Division 2 was tested using the games benchmark tool, and it was a win for the 3100
in all regards.
Out of all 17 games tested, this game had the biggest improvement with the 3100 at 1080p,
where the average FPS was 31% ahead of the 9100F.
The Witcher 3 was tested running through the same section of the game, the 9100F was the
winner here.
Averages were barely ahead with the 3100 at 1080p, but it’s less than two FPS.
The 9100F saw a slightly higher 4% boost to average FPS at 1440p, but perhaps more importantly
there was a larger difference seen in the 1% lows.
Ghost Recon Breakpoint was tested with the games built in benchmark, this time the 3100
was in front in all cases.
The difference to average FPS was more minor though when compared to the bigger gains seen
in the 1% low results.
Far Cry New Dawn was also tested with the games built in benchmark, though this time
the 9100F was back on top with some big gains.
This title performed the best on the i3 out of all games covered and had a 15% higher
average FPS at 1080p over the 3100.
On average over these 17 games tested, the Intel i3-9100F was just less than one percent
slower than the Ryzen 3 3100.
As you can see though, the results can vary significantly between individual game.
Games like Call of Duty or The Division 2 really seemed to favour the 3100, while others
like Far Cry and Dota preferred the 9100F.
Many games saw minor differences one way or the other, but yeah once we average the results
of all 17 titles tested, the 3100 was a little faster.
When we look at the 1440p results however, the i3-9100F now has a less than one percent
lead over the 3100.
This is a similar margin to the 1080p results, just going the other way now, however there
are less larger swings between the two processors at this more GPU bound resolution.
Based on these results, processor selection doesn’t really seem to matter too much in
terms of gaming in the grand scheme of things.
On average they’re just one percent different in terms of average FPS.
When we take the costs into consideration though, the 9100F is offering better value
in terms of cost per frame.
Although the gaming performance was similar on average, the 9100F is currently $25 cheaper,
which is a significant amount at these price points.
Basically if you’re only gaming, the 9100F is $25 cheaper while only performing 0.9%
slower at 1080p, or 0.9% faster at 1440p, so it’s offering better value out of the
two for games, granted it can depend vastly on the specific title.
That said though, if you’re after a good gaming experience, it’s probably worth spending
a little more to upgrade the processor further to boost 1% low performance and have a smoother
experience unless you’re on a really strict budget, I’m not exactly trying to recommend
buying an i3 for gaming here, or the 3100 for that matter, again unless you’re after
a lower end option.
If you’re not gaming, or otherwise doing a mixture of gaming and core heavy workloads,
as we saw earlier the 3100 offered some nice gains in the more productivity focussed workloads,
so that would make sense as a better all rounder.
For $25 more, some workloads were seeing in excess of 50% performance gains which could
be worthwhile depending on what you’re using it for.
In terms of future upgradability, the 3100 also seems to offer the most options.
As it uses the AM4 socket, technically if you buy a fairly decent mid range motherboard
you could upgrade to the 3950X 16 core processor in future.
The 9100F could be upgraded to the 9900K 8 core processor at best, as Intel are moving
to the new LGA 1200 socket for the 10th generation.
Additionally, Ryzen offers faster PCIe 4.0 support, while Intel 9th gen and even the
upcoming 10th gen uses PCIe 3.0.
As hardware unboxed have shown, the 3950X can run well in fairly priced B450 motherboards.
On the Intel side, if you get a B360 board then memory for the 9100F will be capped at
DDR4-2666 speeds, you need to go for a Z390 board like I tested with to use the faster
3200 speeds, which could be more expensive, whereas faster memory and overclocking is
supported with the lower tier Ryzen boards.
It’s worth noting that at the time of the 3100 launch, Intel 10th gen isn’t too far
away from launching.
Once Intel launches the 10th gen i3-10100 with hyperthreading, I’d expect the story
to change, of course depending on pricing.
I’ll test it out in a future video once it’s available, but with the same thread
count it should be much more competitive.
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 which CPU you’d pick and why down in the comments, Intel’s i3-9100F or
AMD’s Ryzen 3 3100?
Granted at this point it’s probably worth waiting to see how Intel’s 10th gen stacks
up, so if you’re new to the channel then get subscribed for all my upcoming 10th gen
processor comparisons.