Intel core i3 3rd generation. Intel Core i3 processors: characteristics and comparison of all models, prices and reviews
Two fast cores versus four slow ones
Testing methodology
In this case, the processor dependence is already noticeable, and the game is “interested” in physical cores, but it does not disdain additional threads. But at the Core i5 level, we are, in fact, again stuck with the video card.
The only one that seriously “failed” is the Core i5-6400. The assumption made last time that the L3 frequency is very important for the game seems to have turned out to be correct. Multi-core processors for LGA2011-3 were “saved” here by the number of computation threads being executed, which the game engine “knows how” to properly utilize, but in the younger model for LGA1151 it is, in fact, the minimum allowable for it.
An example of a game that still only needs a couple of cores without any Hyper-Threading, so high-frequency Core i3s look their best. Rare case today :)
Because that happens. In principle, four high-frequency cores are enough for the application - but among today's test subjects, this is the Ryzen 3 1300X. The Ryzen 5 1400 lags behind slightly thanks to SMT. Both Core i5s are already noticeable: four single-threaded cores and a low frequency. All Core i3s are even slower. From a practical point of view, however, the performance can be considered sufficient, but... Paired with some processors, a video card based on the GTX 1070 already produces a hundred frames per second, against which 60 fps is quite bad. You can get by with a slower sampling rate. Note that this applies to all subjects.
In this game the gap from the “best” is no longer so great, but it still exists. Thus, the times when older Core i3 or younger Core i5 were perfect for a gaming computer almost regardless of the video card are in the past. So from this point of view, it’s time to change something in these families :)
Another case when almost ran into a video card, but exactly what almost. That is, it is already desirable to get a little more from processors. Which, however, is logical and fits into the old empirical formula “price ratio 1:2”. In the sense that a similar video card to the one we use in retail costs an average of 35 thousand rubles, this means that a processor paired with it should cost at least 15 thousand (if not a modern one, then with performance at the level of a modern one for the money). And this, after all, is the level of older, not younger Core i5 or Ryzen 5, not to mention the more budget lines. However, their representatives, generally speaking, provide a good level of productivity - but often they themselves limit it.
Total
It is easy to see that, regardless of the presence or absence of inter-company competition (which is still not complete), it was necessary to “shake up” the Intel processor lines that were established many years ago. Of all the reasons, in principle, one is enough: in their current form there is nowhere to develop them, since it is no longer possible to significantly increase the frequencies, not only for the top Core i7. It is clear that it would be more logical to carry out this process “in one touch”, timed to coincide with the release of the seventh generation Core and maintaining compatibility within the same socket (at least the Pentium and Core i3, which have become almost identical, would not look so strange), however, In practice, everything turned out completely differently. 
After the announcement of the LGA1155 platform, Intel is methodically updating its processor lines. Starting with top-end CPUs, the manufacturer is moving to Sandy Bridge and more affordable solutions - Core i3 and Pentium. The latter are intended for entry-level and mid-level systems. Models costing “about $100” have always been objects of close attention from users who are accustomed to looking for the best options when completing a system. Often people who choose a processor from this price category approach this issue even more responsibly than those who are willing to pay any price for maximum performance. Let's see what the new Intel products are capable of in comparison with their predecessors and alternative solutions from their main competitor.
From a technical point of view, the most important difference between the Core i3 and the Core i5/i7 chips is that they are initially based on a dual-core crystal, and not a quad-core one with deactivated computing units. That is, no tricky tricks with unlocking will work here, however, Intel chips have not provided such an opportunity before. The area has decreased from 216 to 131 mm2, therefore, significantly more workpieces are obtained from one silicon wafer, and the cost of their production is lower. Accordingly, Intel has a chance to offer interesting retail prices, continuing to make money even on budget processors.
What changes have occurred in terms of functional equipment? The amount of L1 and L2 cache memory is identical for all models on Sandy Bridge (64 KB and 256 KB per core), but the third level buffer in the Core i3 has decreased in proportion to the number of cores - from 6 to 3 MB. The compact crystal, made using 32-nanometer technology, allows you to count on good power consumption indicators. The TDP for the second generation Core i3 is 65 W, while for predecessors from the Clarkdale family this parameter was within 73 W.
| 3DMark 06, CPU test, scores |
| System energy consumption, W |
 |
| PCMark 7, Computation scenario, points |
 |
| Fritz chess Benchmark 4.2, thousand nodes/c |
 |
| x264 HD Benchmark 4.0, fps |
 |
| WinRAR 4.0, KB/s |
 |
| CineBench 11.5, points |
 |
| Resident Evil 5, 1920×1080, DX9, average quality, fps |
 |
| Colin McRae: DiRT 3, 1920×1080, medium quality, fps |
 |
| Far Cry 2, 1920×1080, medium quality, fps |
 |
The chip integrates Intel HD Graphics 2000 with 6 computing units. The standard frequency of the video core is 850 MHz, while during operation it can dynamically increase to 1.1 GHz. Support for Quick Sync, a powerful tool for video transcoding, is retained. Another advantage of the Core i3 is Hyper Threading technology, which adds a couple more virtual cores to two physical cores. In multi-threaded applications, this function sometimes plays a very important role, allowing you to use CPU resources more efficiently. We also note that the processor has the ability to execute instructions from the AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions) set, which, with the proper degree of optimization, will help speed up floating-point calculations, which are actively used in multimedia software.
Alas, Core i3 does not support Turbo Boost technology for dynamically increasing the frequency of processor cores, which is to some extent compensated for by high nominal values. Given the positioning of the CPUs of this family, there are also no AES encryption instructions here.
The current line of processors consists of four models. The younger Core i3-2100 with a clock frequency of 3.1 GHz is offered for $117. The Core i3-2120 operates at 3.3 GHz and costs $20 more. Intel has also included a cost-effective version of the i3-2100T with a TDP of 35 W. As a rule, it is possible to reduce CPU power consumption by reducing the operating clock frequency and supply voltage. On motherboards that allow the user to perform downclocking themselves and reduce the voltage below the recommended values, it is often possible to achieve similar results. But in cases where this is not possible, purchasing energy-efficient models will be justified. The Core i3-2100T operates at 2.5 GHz, and the graphics unit frequency is reduced from 850 to 650 MHz, while it can dynamically increase to 1.1 GHz.
Chips with reduced power consumption will be in demand for systems with compact cases that have a small volume and, accordingly, limited options for choosing a cooling system.
The Core i3-2105 stands out in the series. This model has identical clock speeds to the i3-2100, but differs from other devices in the family in the use of more powerful Intel HD Graphics 3000 graphics. Returning to the chip topology, we note that the graphics component occupies a significant part of it - about a quarter. In turn, the lion's share of space is allocated to computing units. Therefore, taking into account the fact that most budget models will have built-in HD Graphics 2000 with 6 blocks, not 12, Intel developers rightly considered that simply deactivating half of the computers is not a very rational solution. Therefore, from a technological point of view, it turned out to be more profitable to have two designs of dual-core crystals. The version with more powerful graphics has a slightly larger area (149 mm2), but in terms of power consumption it also falls within 65 W. As we could see earlier, the performance of HD Graphics 2000 and 3000 is noticeably different: depending on the tasks, the latter is 1.5–2 times faster, while being a serious competitor to budget discrete video cards. An overpayment of $14 for a modification with faster graphics will make sense if you are determined to use integrated video, and the capabilities of HD Graphics 2000 seem insufficient for the intended tasks.
Unlike mobile solutions, where even dual-core processors can be offered under the Core i7 brand, among desktop Core models with Sandy Bridge architecture there is currently a fairly clear segmentation by the number of computing units (physical and virtual): Core i7 - 4 cores and Hyper Threading , Core i5 – 4 cores without HT, Core i3 – 2 cores and Hyper Threading.
Pentium
If we move down the conventional scale of differentiation of current Intel processors, Core i3 is followed by Pentium chips. With the advent of the Core architecture, without exaggeration, the legendary brand was used to designate fairly affordable CPUs with a traditionally good price/performance ratio. Modernization of this line has been asking for a long time. Recently, models for the still relevant LGA775 platform have not been easy to hold back the onslaught of inexpensive solutions from AMD, especially to compete on equal terms with the tri-core Athlon II X3, which often offered higher performance at a similar price. Pentium based on the Clarkdale core for the LGA1156 socket have not gained significant popularity. The market situation at the time of the release of this platform was such that it was primarily positioned by Intel as a solution for mid- and high-end systems. Therefore, even after expanding the initial range of processors, the minimum cost of admission here remained quite high. The retail price of the most affordable Pentium G6950 is about $100, which is a bit expensive for an entry-level PC. It is easy to assume that Pentium for LGA1156, combining two crystals (CPU and GPU), has a higher cost. Therefore, it is quite difficult to seriously reduce the price of these processors. Moreover, in this case we are talking about budget chips of mass production. And boards cheaper than $80–90 for LGA1156 actually appeared only after the announcement of Sandy Bridge.
The updated Pentium modifications were the result of a simple simplification of the dual-core chips used for the Core i3. First of all, Pentium lost Hyper Threading technology, as well as the ability to execute AVX instructions. At the same time, the cache memory volumes are identical to those for the Core i3. The new Pentium family chips also use Intel HD Graphics 2000, although with a number of restrictions regarding support for proprietary technologies. In particular, Quick Sync, the Intel Clear Video HD visual enhancement function and stereoscopic image output (Intel InTru 3D) do not work here.
At the initial stage, the line includes four models: Pentium G850 (2.9 GHz), G840 (2.8), G620 (2.6 GHz) and G620T (2.2 GHz). As you might guess, the latter refers to economical modifications, the energy consumption level of which does not exceed 35 W. In addition to the clock frequency reduced to 2.2 GHz, like the energy-efficient Core i3-2100T model, it also has a reduced graphics core frequency to 650 MHz with a limit value of 1.1 GHz.
As you can see, the new Pentium processors, compared to the Core i3, are mainly lighter in terms of functionality, while the basic characteristics should provide a decent level of performance. The Sandy Bridge microarchitecture used promises a good increase in performance, which we will try to verify during practical tests. As for the price, in wholesale quantities the cost of the CPU family lies in the range of $64–86. The retail price will be slightly higher, but it is obvious that Pentium will be cheaper not only than the Core i3, but also its predecessors with the Clarkdale core.
The updated Pentium models were presented quite recently - at the end of May. And almost immediately they appeared in retail sales in Ukraine. Intel has a good practice of bringing its products to market when they become available to customers either simultaneously with the global presentation or as soon as possible after it.
| Model | Core i3-2120 | Core i3-530 | Pentium G620/G850 | Pentium G6950 | Athlon II X3 455 | Phenom II X4 955 |
| Codename | Sandy Bridge | Clarkdale | Sandy Bridge | Clarkdale | Rana | Deneb |
| Number of cores (threads), pcs. | 2 (4) | 2 (4) | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Clock frequency, GHz | 3,3 | 2,93 | 2,6/2,9 | 2,8 | 3,3 | 3,2 |
| L3 cache size | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | – | 6 |
| Integrated graphics (core frequency) | Intel HD Graphics 2000 (850/1100) | Intel HD Graphics (733) | Intel HD Graphics 2000 (850/1100) | Intel HD Graphics (533) | – | – |
| Technology production, nm | 32 | 32 + 45 | 32 | 32 + 45 | 45 | 45 |
| CPU socket | LGA 1155 | LGA 1156 | LGA 1155 | LGA 1156 | AM3 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP), W | 65 | 73 | 65 | 73 | 95 | 125 |
| Recommended price, $ | 138 | ~105* | 64 | 87 | 76 | 117 |
| * According to the Hotline.ua catalog | ||||||
Overclocking
Overclocking is a fairly popular pastime for many enthusiasts. Someone is trying to increase system performance in this way in the hope of delaying the next upgrade. For some, it is a hobby, a sport, or a way to satisfy idle curiosity by exploring the capabilities and hidden potential of the CPU.
Unfortunately, those who like to experiment with overclocking will be a little disappointed this time. Considering the specifics of the clock generator in the new platform and the locked processor multiplier of the chips reviewed, it is obvious that the room for maneuver here is seriously limited. Even despite the relatively high multiplication factors (+100–150 MHz), this is all that can be squeezed out after increasing the carrier bus to 103–106 MHz, at which current motherboards maintain stable operation. Of course, these are not the indicators that we would like to get, especially considering that older Sandy Bridge models often reach frequencies of 4500 MHz and higher even in the air. Alas, the new Pentium and Core i3 are not designed for overclocking at all. You will have to come to terms with this fact and take it into account when purchasing. At the same time, it is also important not to forget that these chips, even in normal mode, are noticeably more productive than their predecessors, which can even out the difference in frequencies.
In our opinion, you can’t expect modifications with unlocked multipliers among Core i3 and Pentium. Models with the K index, so beloved by overclockers, will be available only in the more expensive Core i5/i7 lines.
Results
As the test results demonstrate, the new Intel processors in the mid-price category have a noticeable performance advantage over their predecessors in terms of performance. Under conditions of good multi-threaded program optimization, AMD chips with a large number of physical computing units can sometimes provide serious resistance. For example, if you look at the performance of the Athlon II X3 455 and Pentium G620, which are now offered at approximately the same price, then a triple-core CPU in applications where calculations can take place in parallel has a definite advantage. Even though the core speed in terms of megahertz of AMD products with K10.5 architecture is noticeably lower than that of Intel chips on Sandy Bridge, in such software “brute force” is often quite effective, although this is achieved by increasing energy costs by one and a half times. However, we must admit that this is an ideal case when all processor cores are used as efficiently as possible. In real applications, this does not happen often, unfortunately. In games, new Intel solutions have unconditional superiority. As we have already seen, the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture copes well with such loads, and the gap between both its predecessors and competitor models is maximum.
New Pentiums are on average 20% more productive than CPUs of the same name for LGA1156 and compete almost equally with Core i3 on the Clarkdale core, which are noticeably more expensive. Simplification of the functional part of these chips did not greatly affect their speed performance. Therefore, these models can be fully recommended for creating universal systems and entry-level gaming platforms. In turn, the second generation Core i3 also noticeably accelerated. Of course, it’s difficult for them to compete with quad-core Core i5s, but high clock speeds and support for Hyper Threading technology allow them to demonstrate very decent results, including in applications with multi-threaded optimization. Well, in games they sometimes look preferable to the quad-core AMD Phenom II X4. Considering that these processors have retained the functionality of older models, they may be interesting for creating both mid-level gaming PCs and powerful multimedia systems.
This time, Intel has done everything to make the LGA1155 platform truly universal. The existing infrastructure allows you to create both a top-end system and an inexpensive entry-level PC. For powerful configurations, there are enough motherboards on the market based on Intel Z68 and P67 chips, and for the most affordable solutions, it is quite possible to use models based on Intel H61. Intel's processor line now looks very smooth. There are no distortions or obvious competition between solutions from different families. So far, one brick is missing - the most affordable CPU models. Soon, Celeron is also planned to be transferred to the 32-nanometer process and a progressive microarchitecture. Presumably, these chips will appear in the third quarter of this year, at which time the range of other lines on Sandy Bridge will be expanded.
| Intel, www.intel.ua |
The results made a dual impression: on the one hand, the performance of the processor part is quite consistent with the modern budget level, on the other hand, two computation threads are already not enough for many modern programs (in the sense that they can use more, accelerating accordingly). And the graphics core, even if it has “grown up” compared to the previous generation, still remains too weak to play more or less modern games at least at minimum settings and with a reduced resolution.
What happens if you pay extra? The question is not idle, since the value of money has increased somewhat recently, so the question of the price of processors is again beginning to matter, which has been greatly devalued over the last decade. In addition, the functional features of modern computers are already very weakly dependent on central processors, satisfying many users even within the budget segment, so additional costs only lead to the fact that everything becomes a little faster. We will try to estimate the magnitude of this “slightly”.
Test bench configuration
| CPU | Intel Core i3-4130 | Intel Core i3-4370 | Intel Core i5-4460 |
| Kernel name | Haswell | Haswell | Haswell |
| Production technology | 22 nm | 22 nm | 22 nm |
| Core frequency std/max, GHz | 3,4 | 3,8 | 3,2/3,4 |
| Number of cores/threads | 2/4 | 2/4 | 4/4 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 64/64 | 64/64 | 128/128 |
| L2 cache, KB | 2×256 | 2×256 | 4×256 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 3 | 4 | 6 |
| RAM | 2×DDR3-1600 | 2×DDR3-1600 | 2×DDR3-1600 |
| TDP, W | 53 | 54 | 84 |
| Graphic arts | HDG 4400 | HDG 4600 | HDG 4600 |
| Number of GPs | 80 | 80 | 80 |
| Frequency std/max, MHz | 350/1150 | 350/1150 | 350/1100 |
| Price | $136() T-10482934 | $158() T-11000559 | $213() T-10820134 |
Two Core i3 and one Core i5 models will help us with this. With the first, everything is simple - these are the same two computing cores as in Celeron/Pentium, but capable of performing four threads of calculations thanks to the support of Hyper-Threading technology. The number of graphics pipelines has also doubled, and there are completely no restrictions on video technology support in this family - in general, this is a “more mature” option. Models 4130 and 4370 are just two opposite ends of the range: in the first case, the minimum frequency for “regular” Core i3, 3 MiB of L3 cache and a low-end GPU, while the second is the maximum in frequency (3.8 GHz is quite serious) , both in cache memory (full 4 MiB L3), and in graphics. But this processor is quite expensive, so it almost overlaps with the younger Core i5-4460: the same graphics, low frequency, but there are already four “full-fledged” cores - a more efficient scheme than 2+HT.
| CPU | Intel Pentium G3460 | Intel Core i5-3427U | AMD A8-7600 | AMD A10-7800 |
| Kernel name | Haswell | Ivy Bridge | Kaveri | Kaveri |
| Production technology | 22 nm | 22 nm | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Core frequency std/max, GHz | 3,5 | 1,8/2,8 | 3,1/3,8 | 3,5/3,9 |
| Number of cores (modules) / threads | 2/2 | 2/4 | 2/4 | 2/4 |
| L1 cache (total), I/D, KB | 64/64 | 64/64 | 192/64 | 192/64 |
| L2 cache, KB | 2×256 | 2×256 | 2×2048 | 2×2048 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 3 | 3 | - | - |
| RAM | 2×DDR3-1600 | 2×DDR3-1600 | 2×DDR3-2133 | 2×DDR3-2133 |
| TDP, W | 53 | 17 | 65/45 | 65/45 |
| Graphic arts | HDG | HDG 4000 | Radeon R7 | Radeon R7 |
| Number of GPs | 40 | 64 | 384 | 512 |
| Frequency std/max, MHz | 350/1100 | 350/1150 | 720 | 720 |
| Price | $82() T-10998994 | - | $106() T-10674782 | $154() T-10674780 |
With whom to compare? Of course, we will need the senior Pentium G3460, tested last time. Another processor of the previous generation, namely the Core i5-3427U, is a guest from a completely different segment: it is a CULV model, usually found in laptops and mini-PCs. But this is what makes it interesting - after all, the question of what to buy: a full-size computer or some kind of NUC (the 3427U was just tested as part of one of the modifications of the latter) arises for many people. And two AMD models - A8-7600 and A10-7800. It is clear that the Pentium graphics were not up to the A6, but today we have more serious (and expensive!) Intel models participating, so it is not interesting to compare with the A6. But with modern A8 and A10 - quite well.
As for other testing conditions, they were as close as possible to those recommended by the manufacturers. Those. AMD processors were tested with the TDP set to 65 W, RAM in maximum mode for all except the Core i5-3427U: there were no SO-DIMM modules suitable for it, so DDR3-1333 was used.
Testing methodology
To evaluate performance, we used our performance measurement methodology using benchmarks and . We normalized all testing results in the iXBT Notebook Benchmark v.1.0 relative to the results of a Pentium G3250 with 8 GB of memory and an Intel 520 240 GB SSD, and the methodology for calculating the integral result remained unchanged. Another program that, like last time, we added to the test set is the Basemark CL 1.0.1.4 benchmark, created to measure the performance of OpenCL code.
iXBT Notebook Benchmark v.1.0
Four threads on two AMD modules in this resource-intensive task is approximately equal to four threads on two Intel cores in the minimum version: the high-frequency i3-4370 is even faster. However, we are not talking about direct competition with quad-core models - although the i5-4460 has a low frequency, it outperforms the best Pentiums by more than twice, and the younger Core i3 and non-top A8/A10 by one and a half. Here is the level of ultrabook Core i5 - only Pentium. Which, however, is not so bad for those who care about the space occupied by the system or its autonomy :)
But not all programs need so many computation threads, and the further we move out of narrow niches towards mass-produced software, the more often this is observed, so the advantages of multi-cores or, at least, multi-threading may dry out. But don’t worry at all - don’t forget that the younger Core i3 and i5 have lower frequencies than the Pentium, but this doesn’t help the latter too much. AMD processors are in an even worse position - it wouldn’t hurt for them to break away from ultrabook Cores more significantly or to overtake the desktop Pentium :)
Photoshop, as we already wrote, still reacts poorly to additional x86 code streams, but it already rates the ability of processors to execute OpenCL quite highly. However, this doesn’t help the “APU ideology” much - it’s still only the Pentium level, and the Core is obviously faster than it. Tabletop ones, of course, but it doesn’t really matter which ones. So the maximum gain actually comes from Core i3.
Two streams are two streams. With weak attempts to use more, which allows the younger Core i3 and i5 to outperform the Pentium and Core i3 running at higher frequencies, respectively, but nothing more. And the Core i5-3427U, swinging the magic sword of Turbo Boost, managed to overtake both AMD desktop models with a TDP of 65 W, and... Celeron G1820 :) In general, not so much, although it could have been worse.
This is where the low clock speed of the Core i5-3427U does not allow one to appreciate its four-thread capabilities, although it still outperforms the G1820. But what’s more interesting is what’s in the desktop segment? And everything is predictable there: Core i3, regardless of frequency, is faster than AMD processors, Core i5 is also even faster, regardless of frequency.
In archivers, multi-threaded packaging “pulls up” multi-core processors, but decompression is performed in one thread - and in the same way “pulls up” high-frequency processors. As a result, the most interesting thing is the practical equality of the older Core i3 and the younger Core i5.
As we have already noted, the test started to run slowly on the LGA1150. Which, however, is not so critical - if you replace a fast solid-state drive with a hard drive (and many still use them as their main and only one, especially when finances are limited) - it will be many times slower: up to 20 points on any platform: ) But with a fast one and within the same platform, as we see, a more powerful processor gives practically nothing: this is the main result from the point of view of testing processors.
In general, the layout is simple. Even the junior Core i3-4130 is slightly faster than any AMD processor for Socket FM2/FM2+. But not much, so these processors can be considered roughly equivalent - as well as all dual-module AMD models. The advantage over Pentium is small, so it is quite possible to limit yourself to representatives of the latter family if you want to “wait inexpensively”. Well, or in cases where “inexpensive” is not too much of a concern, but compactness/autonomy is a big concern, ultramobile Core i5 will also provide a comparable level of performance. But they should not be confused with desktop Core i5 - they are one and a half times faster. The older Core i3s are somewhere between the younger i3 and i5, but closer to the former. For the price, however, too.
OpenCL
We have placed the Core i5-3427U here for now, since it is on par with many desktop models - which is not surprising, since its GPU is more powerful than those of “many” even more modern ones, and this test pays little attention to processor performance.
All three processors with HDG 4600 (i3-4370, i5-4460 and i7-4770K) behave the same, although they cost differently. In general, I again want to wipe away a stingy tear about the fact that in real applications everything is not at all as beautiful as in specialized test utilities, so you have to pay for “unnecessary” x86 cores and gigahertz.
Games
Actually, this is why they buy AMD APUs - you can play in FHD (even at minimum settings), and on Intel processors you can only lower the resolution. But at least it's already possible.
The picture is similar: HD Graphics, even in older versions, and integrated Radeons provide the same frame rate, but in different resolutions. “Somehow it’s possible” and “somehow it’s possible in FullHD” - briefly and clearly :)
The only case where the balm is given to the soul is that the HDG 4600 in medium processors even catches up with the Radeon in FHD, and in low resolutions the Pentium is already faster than AMD processors, but this is not such a frequent (albeit popular) case.
More often than not, this is already in the third game from the set.
Well, the icing on the cake is when we compare “low resolution” and “not at all.”
In Hitman it is a little easier, since the game is less demanding on the GPU. But all the same - AMD is already storming the peaks of full resolution, and Intel only some of its models exceed low resolution.
In general, in a global sense, nothing has changed. Progress in terms of performance (and functionality) of integrated Intel graphics is quite noticeable, but there has been no fundamental change in the picture since the days of Llano. For now, if you still want to play some games without purchasing a discrete video card, AMD processors seem to be the more optimal solutions - they are simply faster and you can afford (as a result) a little more: both in terms of the range of games and in terms of settings.
Total
If the top Core i7 models are expensive, then many can afford a Core i3 or inexpensive Core i5. For what? And simply because they are faster than the same Pentium, but still not much more expensive. On the other hand, they are not many times faster, so you can save money. There are so many people - so many opinions. In any case, there is demand - there is never too much productivity. Moreover, the results of the Core i5-3427U clearly show that desktop computers are not in danger of dying at the hands of mini-PCs or laptops - they sacrifice compactness for performance and price.
But do not forget that when we talk about high performance, we mean precisely “processor” performance in mass-produced programs. The graphics core of the reviewed processors may be superior to the “numberless” HD Graphics, but it is not worth seriously considering it for regular use in games. It is better, however, to choose A8/A10 in this case or install a discrete video card - paired with a Core i3/i5 you will get a truly gaming computer.
Laptops with Intel Core i3 are mid-class models designed to perform relatively simple professional and household tasks. They are ideal for office work, image editing and Internet surfing. Of course, most of these devices can handle 3D gaming media, but they do not allow you to choose high quality graphics.
Technical features
Since these chips are considered junior in the Core lineup, they are equipped with only two cores. 7th generation processors support Hyper-Threading technology, which allows them to process up to four streams of information simultaneously. However, it is worth considering that they do not provide automatic overclocking under heavy loads.
Core i3 processors are produced exclusively for use in consumer and basic office computers. Therefore, they are all equipped with integrated graphics adapters capable of playing high-definition video.
Common modifications
The price of a laptop with Intel Core i3 depends on the processor generation. Currently, the most common models are the 5, 6 and 7 series. Each generation differs from the previous one with increased performance and reduced energy consumption. It is worth noting that the 7 Series uses integrated graphics adapters capable of playing 4K video. There are also special versions of processors:
- U, T, S - energy efficient modifications;
- E - versions for embedded systems and small-sized computers;
- Y - special models for ultrabooks.
Affordable computer equipment at Eldorado
In our online store you can buy laptops with Intel Core i3 from manufacturers such as Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Lenovo and ASUS. To quickly select the appropriate model, just use the convenient system for sorting goods in the catalog or contact the specialists of the Eldorado company. All devices are available with delivery in Moscow, Arkhangelsk, St. Petersburg, Vladivostok and other cities of Russia.
Intel Core i3 is a wide range of processors that, within the Intel Core family, are characterized by entry-level and mid-range performance. Intel Core i3 series CPUs occupy an intermediate position between the now outdated Core 2 Duo processors and the increased power Intel Core i5/i7 processors that are equipped with high-performance PCs.
Features and benefits of Intel i3 processors
As of mid-2019, Intel Core i 3 processors include 9 generations. The most recent edition of the i3 line is the 9xxx processors. They are based on the Coffee Lake Refresh architecture, which uses a 14-nanometer process technology.
The main distinguishing feature of i3 processors from previous generations of CPUs is the use of Hyper-threading technology, which makes it possible to multi-thread information processing regardless of the number of cores. Thus, 2-core processors with support for Hyper-threading split data into 4 independent threads, which significantly increases both the performance and reliability of the computer system.
Initially, support for Turbo Boost technology was not provided for. But the 9th generation i3 CPUs still got the ability to overclock the processor frequency under load, but at the same time, the cost of the Intel Core i3 processor increased accordingly. Thanks to Turbo Boost, you can, for example, increase the frequency of one of the cores of the i3-9350KF processor from 4 to 4.6 GHz.
What to look for when choosing
To choose a model that will best meet your requirements and expectations, be sure to pay attention to the following characteristics when choosing.
1. Generation (architecture). As of mid-2019, there are 9 generations in the i3 CPU family. On sale you can find processors ranging from the 3rd generation and higher.
- 3rd generation - Ivy Bridge architecture (22 nm process technology);
- 4th generation - Haswell architecture (22 nm process technology);
- 5th generation - Broadwell architecture (14 nm process technology);
- 6th generation - Skylake architecture (14 nm process technology);
- 7th generation - Kaby Lake architecture (14 nm process technology);
- 8th generation - Coffee Lake architecture (14 nm process technology);
- 9th generation - Coffee Lake Refresh architecture (14 nm process technology).
Each new generation uses improved data processing technology, is characterized by increased energy efficiency and increased performance. Of course, the price of older generation Intel Core i3 processors is also higher.
2. Socket. The socket (connector) is responsible for the compatibility of the processor with the motherboard. Modern CPUs from the i3 line may be compatible with the following socket types:
- Intel LGA 1150;
- Intel LGA 1151 (1151 v2);
- Intel LGA 1155;
- Intel LGA 1156.
It is important to note that processors for different socket types are not interchangeable. That is, a CPU with a Socket Intel Core i3 LGA 1150 connector cannot be installed on a motherboard with an LGA 1155 socket.
3. Availability of integrated graphics. The vast majority of i3 family processors have a built-in graphics accelerator. Integrated video doesn't offer great performance, but it allows you to use your PC without the need for expensive discrete graphics.
How to buy an Intel Core i3 processor
The E-katalog online store catalog presents the most current processor models. Despite the abundance of modifications on the market, using the convenient “Selection by parameters” filters you can easily and simply select and buy an Intel Core i3 processor for your computer. To do this, simply mark the parameters and characteristics that are important to you in the selection filters, after which the system will automatically generate a list of models that meet the requirements. And once you have decided on the device, you can also easily find out how much an Intel Core i3 costs in different online stores across the country.