Core i3 6100 skylake


Процессор Intel Core i3-6100

Четырехъядерные процессоры для платформы LGA1151 мы уже изучили неплохо, недавно познакомились и с младшим на текущий момент Pentium G4400, а вот моделями семейства Core i3 практически не занимались. Точнее, нами был протестирован Core i3-6300T, но это процессор специфический и распространяющийся только по ОЕМ-каналам. Собственно, и большинству покупателей комплектующих не интересный — доступные для «самосбора» платформы как правило можно укомплектовать и процессорами с TDP 65 Вт (или около того), так что Т-семейство способно заинтересовать лишь крупных сборщиков для использования в «очень маленьких» компьютерах (при этом на сегодняшний день литровый по объему корпус, например, «очень маленьким» не считается).

А вот «обычные» Core i3, напротив, весьма интересны. Да, разумеется, они медленнее четырехъядерных Core i5/i7, но не всегда так уж заметно медленнее (особенно в программном обеспечении «бытового назначения», до сих пор неспособном похвастаться хорошей степенью утилизации многопоточности), а стоят в полтора-два раза дешевле, чем Core i5. И в полтора-два раза дороже, чем Pentium, но в абсолютном исчислении это уже меньшие суммы, которые, зачастую, вполне пропорциональны разнице в производительности. При этом покупатель получает хотя бы не два, а четыре потока вычислений (пусть и на тех же двух ядрах), что иногда может пригодиться. Например, в недорогом игровом компьютере с бюджетной дискретной видеокартой, да и интегрированное видео в этих процессорах такое же, как и в старших моделях. У некоторых Pentium, впрочем, уже тоже, но как раз у самых дорогих. И в таких условиях доплата всего $25 (разница рекомендованных цен Pentium G4520 и Core i3-6100) выглядит вполне оправданной, да и на фоне полной стоимости компьютера (особенно если, все-таки, ориентироваться на дискретную видеокарту) малозаметной.

В общем, надо тестировать. Естественно, начав с наиболее интересной, поскольку и самой дешевой модели — старшие уже слишком близки по цене к младшим Core i5, так что вопрос выбора усложняется. А вот i3-6100 такой проблемы лишен :)

Конфигурация тестовых стендов

Процессор Intel Core i3-4170Intel Core i3-4360Intel Core i3-6100Intel Core i5-6400
Название ядра HaswellHaswellSkylakeSkylake
Технология пр-ва 22 нм22 нм14 нм14 нм
Частота ядра std/max, ГГц 3,73,73,72,7/3,3
Кол-во ядер/потоков2/42/42/44/4
Кэш L1 (сумм.), I/D, КБ64/6464/6464/64128/128
Кэш L2, КБ2×2562×2562×2564×256
Кэш L3 (L4), МиБ3436
Оперативная память 2×DDR3-16002×DDR3-16002×DDR4-2133 2×DDR4-2133
TDP, Вт54545165
ГрафикаHDG 4400HDG 4600HDG 530HDG 530
Кол-во EU20202424
Частота std/max, МГц350/1150350/1150350/1050350/950
ЦенаT-12515768T-10819581T-12874330T-12873939

Мы не стали брать для тестирования слишком много процессоров, ограничившись всего четырьмя. Во-первых, нам обязательно нужен Core i3-4170 — непосредственный предшественник i3-6100 с идентичным ценовым позиционированием. Во-вторых, мы добавили к списку испытуемых i3-4360, сходный с 4170, но имеющий на мегабайт кэш-памяти больше и чуть более мощный GPU. В линейке 43х0 это не самая старшая модель, но нам хорошо подходит именно она, поскольку тут и тактовые частоты такие же, как у 4170 и 6100. В-третьих, нам не повредят также результаты Core i5-6400 — чтоб было видно: когда стоит доплатить (и стоит ли).

Поскольку вопрос использования памяти типа DDR3 на платформе LGA1151 нами уже изучен вплоть до Pentium, а цена ее на данный момент практически идентична DDR4, совместно с i3-6100 и i5-6400 мы использовали только последнюю. Соответственно, частоты памяти были разными. А вот ее объем (8 ГБ) и системный накопитель (Toshiba THNSNh356GMCT емкостью 256 ГБ) были одинаковыми для всех испытуемых.

Методика тестирования

Для оценки производительности мы пока еще использовали нашу прошлогоднюю методику измерения производительности с применением бенчмарков iXBT Application Benchmark 2015 и iXBT Game Benchmark 2015. Все результаты тестирования в первом бенчмарке мы нормировали относительно результатов референсной системы:

Процессор Intel Core i5-3317U
Чипсет Intel HM77 Express
Память4 ГБ DDR3-1600 (двухканальный режим)
Графическая подсистемаIntel HD Graphics 4000
НакопительSSD 128 ГБ Crucial M4-CT128M4SSD1
Операционная системаWindows 8 (64-битная)
Версия видеодрайвера графического ядра Intel9.18.10.3186

iXBT Application Benchmark 2015

По понятным причинам прямая конкуренция с пусть даже младшим и «задавленным» по частотам Core i5-6400 в данной группе программ невозможна, а вот превосходство над предшественниками составляет более 10%. Отрадно, что это преимущество в сравнении с более дорогими предшественниками, с которыми, вообще-то, положено конкурировать моделям линейки 63х0. i3-6100 же заменяет 4170 и его аналоги, а вот тут уже разница ближе к 15%.

Преимущество «настоящих ядер» меньше, превосходство над предшественниками тоже (отметим, что здесь и разница между 41х0 и 43х0 на одинаковой частоте практически незаметна, в отличие от предыдущего случая), но общий вывод не изменяется — новые процессоры быстрее тех, кого им положено заменять, пусть и не настолько принципиально быстрее, чтобы подорвать положение представителей более дорогих семейств (что, впрочем, тоже вполне логично — в противном случае они стали бы не нужны, оставаясь более дорогими).

Чем слабее задействуются «дополнительные» ядра, тем меньше разброс результатов между всеми участниками. Впрочем, в итоге получается так, что 6100 начинает выглядеть еще более выигрышно — своих предшественников той же (и даже немного более высокой) стоимости он обгоняет, а от более дорогих процессоров «своей» же платформы отстает незначительно.

Если же приложение загружает одно-два ядра, получается вот так — благодаря более высоким тактовым частотам старшие Core i3 обгоняют младшие Core i5 (такие, как 6400 или 4460). Собственно, если сравнивать процессоры разных поколений, то и не только младшие — Core i5-3570 (а это одна из самых быстрых моделей для LGA1155) к примеру в этом тесте «набирал» 150,2 балла, а Core i3-6100 уже быстрее. Ну и в своем классе он тоже быстрый, благо все Core i3 по устройству и частотам как раз примерно одинаковые. Разве что i3-4370 мог бы не отстать, но супротив него положено выступать 6300, а не 6100.

В Audition получился «большой скачок», позволивший Core i3-6100 обогнать, например, Core i5-4460, от которого все Core i3 того же поколения заметно отставали. И разница с i5-6400 тоже исчезающе мала в итоге.

Еще одно приложение, где четырехъядерные процессоры априори имеют преимущество. С другой стороны, от i5-6400 i3-6100 отстает примерно на 10% и почти на столько же он опережает имеющие ту же тактовую частоту Core i3 для LGA1150. Вывод? Можно и сэкономить при необходимости :)

Как мы уже отмечали, в архиваторных тестах преимуществ у новой архитектуры не наблюдается, на что еще накладываются и «особенности» работы с памятью: поддержка DDR3 хуже, чем DDR4, но последняя объективно пока еще имеет более высокие задержки. В таких условиях, как видим, можно даже и проиграть непосредственному конкуренту. Впрочем, на текущий момент скорость архивации как правило не настолько критична, чтобы пара процентов разницы так уж бросалась в глаза на практике, но факт остается фактом — бывает и такое.

Тоже самое касается и «платформенных» тестов, где «не блещет» (или «пока не блещет») сама платформа. Но сами-то процессоры в таких результатах не виноваты — речь, скорее, идет о прочем окружении. Возможно, даже, исключительно программном.

В конечном итоге приходим к тому, что новый Core i3 превосходит старые. Или, как минимум, им не уступает — разумеется, Core i3-4370 немного быстрее, чем i3-4360, но вряд ли более чем на 3% (разница по тактовой частоте между этими двумя моделями). Соответственно, даже самая осторожная оценка дает примерный паритет новинки с самым быстрым и дорогим Core i3 для LGA1150 при меньшей цене. Собственно, если судить по интегральной оценке, то и с младшими Core i5 для упомянутой платформы — такими, как 4430 или 4440. Да и отставание от их смены в лице 6400 тоже невелико. Но это в среднем — как мы выше уже видели, иногда четыре ядра куда предпочтительнее двух (пусть даже с поддержкой Hyper-Threading), так что доплата за них смысл имеет. А иногда вовсе не нужна.

Игровые приложения

По понятным причинам, для компьютерных систем такого уровня мы ограничиваемся режимом минимального качества, причем не только в «полном» разрешении, но и с его уменьшением до 1366×768.

Ровная «лесенка» без качественных улучшений — в целом новые процессоры побыстрее, но не существенно: как и ранее играть можно только в сниженном разрешении.

С «танками», как обычно, проблем нет вообще — с этой игрой при минимальных настройках уже и Pentium справляются. Заметим, что в низком разрешении i3-4360 быстрее, но это уже не имеет практического значения: все нормально работает и в FullHD, а вот здесь HDG 530 выглядит лучше.

В Grid2, как мы уже не раз писали, определенный переход количества в качество произошел, но касается он только «полного» разрешения и заключается в том, что его больше вообще не нужно снижать :)

Без увеличения производительности не обошлось, но вот тут как раз перехода количества в качества нет: и ранее с этой игрой хотя бы в низком разрешении худо-бедно справлялись только Core i5, и сейчас без изменений.

В более старой игре серии тоже без существенных изменений — с ней уже начали кое-как справляться и Core i3 предыдущего поколения. Правда только представители старшей линейки, а мы сегодня тестировали самую медленную модель новой младшей, чего тоже не стоит забывать.

Сказанное выше касается и этой игры, с которой HDG 4400 в i3-4170 еще не справлялся, а пришедший ему на смену i3-6100 не только «переваливает» за границу играбельности, но и более дорогие процессоры семейства 43х0 обгоняет.

Пока еще безнадежный для любой интегрированной графики случай — даже режим низкого разрешения может «вытянуть» только процессор с GT3e, но никак не недорогие массовые модели (и не только Intel). Рассчитывать на какое-то изменение ситуации в обозримой перспективе не приходится.

А вот и «переход на новый уровень» — ранее с полным разрешением в этой игре справлялись разве что Core i5, теперь же и к Core i3 вопросов нет. Впрочем, открытием это не стало — ведь мы уже тестировали Core i3-6300T, так что в результате не сомневались.

Всех испытуемых мало и еще долгое время будет мало — разве что старшие Core i5 для LGA1151 приближаются к границе комфорта хотя бы в низком разрешении, но не более того. Впрочем, возможно, что доработки драйверов что-то улучшат — иначе сложно объяснить проигрыш новых Core i3 даже предыдущему семейству, но вряд ли принципиально.

В этой игре результат тоже мог бы быть и лучше, как нам кажется, но в общем для низкого разрешения новых процессоров хотя бы хватает как и старых. Так что в общем и целом можно констатировать тот факт, что пока принципиальных изменений в этом плане не произошло. Архитектурные изменения и увеличение количества исполнительных устройств, равно как и освоение более быстрой (по пропускной способности) памяти, безусловно, позволили в очередной раз повысить производительность графического ядра, но без «большого скачка», типа наблюдавшегося при переходе с LGA1155 на LGA1150. Отметим, что последнюю платформу в этом году еще и «пришпорили» дополнительно, благодаря появлению «сокетных» Broadwell с GT3e, так что в общем и целом в плане графики новые системы потенциально даже уступают старым. Эта «несправедливость» будет исправлена только летом 2016 года, когда на рынок выйдут процессоры с видеоядром GT4e, рассчитанные на установку в сокет LGA1151, однако (как и непосредственные предшественники для LGA1150) они будут только четырехъядерными.

Итого

Как уже не раз было сказано, мы считаем именно семейство Core i3 наиболее интересным для массового пользователя, не имеющего специфических потребностей и не желающего платить за центральный процессор слишком много. При этом от Pentium такие модели отличаются значительно, а младшим Core i5 иногда и вовсе не уступают по производительности. В этом смысле Core i3-6100 не продемонстрировал ничего нового — фактически, сказанное можно отнести к любому поколению Core i3, начиная с самого первого шестилетней давности. Новое стало лучше (традиционно), но лишь немногим лучше (тоже традиционно) предыдущего без принципиальных изменений. Этого вполне достаточно для того, чтобы при выборе между платформами предпочесть более новую, но это, разумеется, не может служить причиной для замены старой на новую. Благодарим компанию «Ф-Центр» за помощь в комплектации тестовых стендов

www.ixbt.com

Intel Skylake: Core i3 6100 review

The best budget gaming CPU?

This review was originally written before locked Intel chips based on the Skylake architecture - like this i3 - could be overclocked. Feeling that our review is a little out of date, we went back to the Core i3 6100 and pushed our particular chip to its limits, and the results are remarkable. In fact, it's possible to match base Core i5 6500 quad-core performance - so we thought we would update this review accordingly with all of our findings. However, do bear in mind that Intel is looking to close down i3 overclocking, so exploiting the current loophole may not be possible on future motherboard purchases.

Having dominated enthusiast gaming with its i5 and i7 line, it's fair to say that the baseline i3 line is often overlooked, but the reality is that in most games, Intel's dual-core, quad-thread processor is still capable of handing in creditable performance, even on the very latest titles that explicitly specify higher-spec CPUs for their recommended settings. Over the last year, our Core i3 4130 has served us well in our budget gaming build, but with the arrival of its new-gen Skylake successor, there are some genuinely impressive gains. Prices still need to settle down (we paid £93 for this chip - typically £10 over the odds for an i3) but the benchmarks and the gameplay performance are fascinating - and there is overclocking potential here that makes a great budget processor even more of a bargain.

We've already reviewed the key Skylake processors aimed at the higher-end enthusiast - the Core i5 6600K and the Core i7 6700K - finding them both to be best-in-class parts with impressive performance improvements over their predecessors in CPU-bound gaming scenarios. The boost to Skylake's raw capabilities comes from a number of factors - firstly that the processor features two generational improvements over its direct predecessor, Haswell (Broadwell only received a limited desktop release) and secondly that the prior DDR3 system RAM is replaced by DDR4, meaning higher levels of memory bandwidth. These factors are just as important for the dual-core Skylake i3, and in the case of the move to DDR4, possibly more so.

On top of that, the i3 also features all of the other architectural improvements enjoyed by the quads, including more internal PCI Express bandwidth, principally allowing for more, faster storage solutions to be attached. However, the chances are that the i3 will be paired with lower-end motherboards with more limited expansion opportunities - but as we'll shortly discover, there are performance benefits from choosing a better board to pair with the new dual-core CPU.

We bought the Core i3 6100 ourselves for £93. Other i3s are available - the i3 6300 adds 1MB of cache, increases the clocks to 3.8GHz, and mildly upclocks the integrated GPU, while the i3 6320 takes frequencies to 3.9GHz. We chose the bottom-end chip because it's the only one available for under £100.

For the purposes of our Skylake reviewing, MSI supplied us with its Z170A Gaming M5 motherboard, while Corsair supplied two sticks of 8GB of Corsair Vengeance LPX low profile DDR4, rated for 2666MHz. For testing the full extent of the overclock, we bought 3000MHz Corsair sticks, which overclocked with each to 3200MHz. Our stock 512GB Crucial MX100 SSD provided the storage for all those 50-gig test games, while power came from an existing Corsair HX750 PSU.

Clearly a mid-range board compared to the Asus Z170 Deluxe we tested with the i5-6600K, nonetheless, the M5 is a great product. SATA Express is included as standard, while two M.2 SSD slots are available as standard for ultra-fast PCI Express RAID - that's something the Asus board required a bundled PCIe riser board to achieve.

MSI produces more expensive, feature-rich Z170 boards, but the M5 has everything you need - the usual surfeit of USB 3.1 ports, plus the requisite Type C connector. Integrated video outputs consist of HDMI and DVI (more expensive boards tend to bundle DisplayPort), while the two main PCI Express slots have a metal protective sleeve to protect them from wear. The firm's tie-up with Killer continues, with the inclusion of its low latency LAN port plus accompanying software suite. Extra software supplied with the board includes a RAMdisk and the Xsplit livestreaming tool.

Our one gripe with the M5? No onboard power/reset buttons - a problem more for bench testers than real-life gaming perhaps, but a notable omission nonetheless. The M5's feature set is grounded in reality - indeed, our favourite feature is the back panel - the LAN port is illuminated very brightly, meaning that plugging in cables around the back in dark conditions (ie under virtually any desk) is a breeze. Really, why isn't this feature completely standard by now? In common with other Z170 boards, the Z170A Gaming M5 allows for RAM speeds over 2133MHz - crucial in our testing in this review.

Skylake's other notable enhancement - specifically its more granular overclocking capabilities - is now also available for locked chips like the i3. The K-series quads allow for both tweaking of the base clock and the multiplier when prior generations only really allowed for adjustment of the latter. At launch, base clock was almost completely locked down - we achieved a mere two per cent increase in performance (77MHz) before the system locked up. However, all major motherboard vendors have since released updated BIOSes for their Z170 boards, meaning that while the multiplier is still locked, the base clock is now tweakable. We could increase base clock on our chip to 120MHz, giving us a 4.44GHz overclock. However, even without overclocking the processor itself, pairing the stock i3 with faster DDR4 can produce substantial increases to performance.

Rich presents a video review of the new Skylake Core i3 - can it be overclocked? Well, it couldn't be at the time of launch - and the window of opportunity is rapidly closing - but the surrounding components certainly can, with sometimes dramatic results.

But let's start by taking a quick look at some basic benchmarks, where we'll compare the new i3 with one of its Haswell predecessors - our trusty Core i3 4130 - along with the AMD challenger in this segment, the FX-6300. Additionally, we'll toss in our existing Skylake data from the quad-core end of the market to get an idea of the architecture's scalability across the range. The results are enlightening.

First up, it's worth pointing out that our Core i3 4130 operates with a clock-speed deficit compared to the new i3 6100 - it runs at 3.4GHz up against the 3.7GHz of the Skylake chip - much as we would have liked to run Haswell comparisons on a clock-for-clock basis, that just wasn't possible. Regardless, across our four tests, the new i3 is handing in performance that's around 17-26 per cent faster. The new chip may only have two cores and four threads, but its multi-threading performance is impressive - 3DMark physics is faster than the six-core FX-6300, both CineBench tests are only marginally slower, while only the x264 encoding tests sees the AMD chip command any kind of tangible improvement.

In fact, even comparisons with the FX-8350 and the Sandy Bridge era Core i5 2500K look surprisingly promising, especially in terms of the 3DMark physics test, which is the closest thing we have to any kind of gaming workload in what are predominantly synthetic and multimedia-orientated benchmarks. Overall, it's a solid start for a budget processor, and as we saw with the Core i5 6600K and the i7 6700K, basic tests like this are no match for putting Intel's technology to task with some challenging gaming content.

i7 6700K i5 6600K i5 3570K i5 2500K FX-8350 FX-6300 i3-4130 i3-6100 CineBench 15 Single Thread CineBench 15 Multi Thread CineBench 11.5 Single Thread CineBench 11.5 Multi-Thread x264 Video Encoding 3DMark Physics
171 158 131 129 98 94 131 156
867 618 505 492 640 406 334 391
2.05 1.81 1.56 1.48 1.11 1.05 1.50 1.78
10.12 6.96 5.97 5.78 6.74 4.47 3.65 4.41
20.45 15.03 11.98 10.98 14.97 10.13 7.58 9.23
13636 8718 6901 6712 7520 5657 5075 6395

We set about benchmarking the new Core i3 using the same principles we used in assessing the Skylake Core i5 and the i7 - we seek to eliminate the GPU as a bottleneck by pairing the CPU with an overclocked Titan X running at 1080p, but we run the games at max settings (albeit with no multi-sampling anti-aliasing in most cases). The role of the CPU is to run game logic and prepare instructions for the GPU - compromising on quality settings would mean fewer elements to draw in any given scene and would not fully test the processor workload.

Additionally, we benched the i3 6100 twice, first of all using the full 2666MHz bandwidth of our Corsair Vengeance DDR4 modules, and then paring that back to 2133MHz in order to match the memory restrictions on the h270, B150 and h210 motherboards more likely to be utilised for budget builds. And as the benchmarks came in, the results were fascinating - in many CPU-bound scenarios, the i3 6100 is significantly faster with higher-speed RAM. We devised the gaming benchmark set-up to eliminate the GPU as the limiting factor in performance but what is clear is that not only is CPU pushed to the fore, memory bandwidth is too.

In the first set of benchmarks, we compare both of those i3 runs with the Skylake i5 and i7, in order to judge how the lower-end chip compares to its more expensive siblings. It's worth watching the video to get the complete breakdown of performance in context, because averages can be deceptive - on the face of it, as an average aggregate all across nine titles, the i3 6100 offers 80 per cent of the performance of the 6700K and 86 per cent of the raw throughput of the 6600K: not bad for an entry-level i3. However, while a strong argument can be made that an i5 offers a very similar real world experience to an i7, the same is not the case with the i3. Play Crysis 3, Ryse, Project Cars or Grand Theft Auto 5 to name just four titles, and the difference is often night and day. Our benchmark sequences - in common with everyone else's - can only offer one snapshot of any given game.

The new Skylake Core i3 is stacked up against its i5 and i7 fellows, and benchmarked with 2133MHz and 2666MHz RAM. Yes, you can 'overclock' an i3 system by choosing faster RAM and a Z170 motherboard.

1920x1080/Titan X OC (Avg FPS) Core i7 6700K (2666MHz DDR4) Core i5 6600K (2666MHz DDR4) Core i3 6100 (2666MHz DDR4) Core i3 6100 (2133MHz DDR4) The Witcher 3, Ultra, HairWorks Off, Custom AA Assassin's Creed Unity, Ultra High, FXAA Battlefield 4, Ultra, 4x MSAA Crysis 3, Very High, SMAA COD Advanced Warfare, Extra, FSMAA Grand Theft Auto 5, Ultra, no MSAA Far Cry 4, Ultra, SMAA Shadow of Mordor, Ultra, High Textures, FXAA Ryse, High, SMAA
99.8 95.7 72.3 64.8
87.1 86.8 79.4 74.3
130.2 127.8 103.1 97.8
119.5 109.4 100.2 99.5
203.6 192.0 159.2 149.4
81.7 70.2 54.7 49.5
115.4 89.9 79.7 71.7
137.3 132.7 134.6 132.6
116.1 112.9 103.2 58.5

The two i3 runs are probably the more fascinating comparison in the table above. Consider the difference that 2666MHz memory makes to performance. That Ryse figure is no error - performance falls through the floor when running with lower levels of bandwidth, while faster RAM offers 11 per cent more performance on GTA 5 and Far Cry 4. And again, those figures are averages spread out across the benchmark run - it's noticeably higher at any given point during 'in the moment' gameplay. The Skylake platform standardises on 2133MHz RAM, and that's all that's available on cheaper boards - only the Z170 range officially lets you run memory faster, and it's clear that there are good advantages in doing so. Put simply, the memory controller in Skylake isn't saturated at the 2133MHz speed limit of the lower-end boards, meaning that gaming performance drops more than it should when you're in CPU-limited scenarios.

It's fair to say that there's a hierarchy of potential bottlenecks in any given PC gaming scenario. First of all, there's the graphics hardware, followed by the CPU. Our tests artificially propel the CPU to the fore, and by extension magnify the impact of limited memory bandwidth. The question is whether this extreme testing will be borne out in actual gameplay conditions, where you're more likely to be running with a lower-end GPU. That can be easily answered with this single screenshot. That's Crysis 3 on the i3 running with a relatively meagre GTX 950, and the game isn't even maxed - we're running on high settings, not the top-end very high. The CPU is fully tapped out in both scenarios, but we're also hitting memory bandwidth limits at 2133MHz, resulting in an 'in the moment' performance deficit of 6fps, along with higher degrees of stutter observed in the frame-times. It should be noted that this scene runs close to a locked 60fps with a Core i7 4790K, proof positive that as fast as the i3 is, there will be gaming scenarios where you really need a quad to get the job done.

Our preferred form of measuring PC performance is to use the FCAT system pioneered by Nvidia. The idea here is remarkably straightforward - rather than use internal tools such as FRAPS to measure performance, FCAT does nothing more than apply a coloured border to the output of the host PC, with each individual frames marked up, ready for analysis.

The source PC is attached to an entirely separate computer, using a high-end capture card that acquires every frame produced. We've adapted our existing frame-rate video tools to work with the FCAT border mark-up system, allowing us - uniquely - to measure performance in context of what is actually being rendered. In short - abstract metrics like lowest frame-rate, highest frame-rate and stutter become much more meaningful when you can actually see what is causing them. We use repeatable scenes from our gaming suite to ensure as close to a like-for-like comparison as possible.

Our result tables are drawn from the FCAT metrics, but on top of that, the videos allow you to see exactly how each game performs: there, not only do you see frame-rate, but frame-time too - showing persistence of every single frame generated by the system. Riva Tuner Statistics Server also has its own FCAT support - we prefer to use Nvidia's version, but the advantage RTSS offers is the ability to gauge CPU and GPU load simultaneously - click on the shot above to see our Witcher 3 test sequence max out the new i5 6600K.

The bottom line is this - most reviews out there provide simplistic bar charts to gauge performance: great for an at-a-glance summary, but lacking in terms of understanding how hardware actually performs at any given point, and where the averaging effect serves to 'iron out' the in-the-moment performance differentials that matter most.

In short, the Core i3 6100 is a capable processor and almost the certainly the best in the sub-£100 price bracket, but if you're looking to get best performance and to better future-proof the platform, we'd recommend that you consider an entry-level Z170 board as opposed to cheaper alternatives. We are hearing rumours that some h270 boards may unofficially support memory overclocking too, which could save some money if true. On top of that, 2133MHz RAM is the absolute baseline - hunt around for 2666MHz sticks. They can be found at a reasonable price if you search - at the time of writing Ebuyer is selling 8GB of Kingston Hyper 2666MHz DDR4 for less than £45, easy enough to absorb into any budget build.

It's not just Skylake that benefits from faster RAM - the last-gen Haswell i3 does too. It's Skylake vs Haswell here, with some AMD FX-6300 benches added to the mix.

1920x1080/Titan X OC (Avg FPS) Core i3 6100 (2666MHz DDR4) Core i3 6100 (2133MHz DDR4) Core i3 4130 (2133MHz DDR3) Core i3 4130 (1600MHz DDR3) FX-6300 (1600MHz DDR3) The Witcher 3, Ultra, HairWorks Off, Custom AA Assassin's Creed Unity, Ultra High, FXAA Battlefield 4, Ultra, 4x MSAA Crysis 3, Very High, SMAA COD Advanced Warfare, Extra, FSMAA Grand Theft Auto 5, Ultra, no MSAA Far Cry 4, Ultra, SMAA Shadow of Mordor, Ultra, High Textures, FXAA Ryse, High, SMAA
72.3 64.8 56.8 52.9 64.2
79.4 74.3 68.8 65.3 67.2
103.1 97.8 84.6 79.3 87.0
100.2 99.5 67.6 57.9 54.8
159.2 149.4 132.1 128.0 131.7
54.7 49.5 43.2 40.3 39.5
79.7 71.7 62.1 61.5 60.8
134.6 132.6 125.8 122.8 97.4
103.2 58.5 88.7 53.4 38.3

Moving on, the table above shows how the Skylake i3 compares to other budget processors. We're stacking it up primarily against the Core i3 4130, its predecessor from the Haswell launch, albeit running at a 300MHz deficit compared to its successor (ideally we would have had the later Core i3 4170 to test, but alas that was not possible). To make things fairer, we're also using faster RAM on the old Z97 platform, as well as standard 1600MHz sticks usable on the last-gen budget motherboards - in short, the Haswell equivalent to the 2133/2666MHz Skylake test. And finally, we're including AMD's FX-6300, although we could only bench that with 1600MHz memory - our Gigabyte AM3+ motherboard refused to run our 2400MHz DDR3 any faster without overclocking the processor itself.

The results show that the last-gen Haswell also benefits from faster RAM too. Ryse is once again crippled with slower memory and still plays like a dog even with faster memory, a situation that is even more impactful on the FX-6300. On the one had, it may well be the case that the CryEngine games are cache-limited, making their reliance on system RAM much more of an issue, but on the other, we saw similar issues in that game with a Core i5 2500K.

It's worth repeating that clock speeds are not like-for-like, but we are seeing improvements north of 20 per cent between Skylake and Haswell here, and it's actually the case that (CryEngine apart) a Core i3 6100 with 2666MHz DDR4 is generally on par or even a little faster than an older Core i5 2500K with 1333MHz DDR3 when both systems are paired with a GTX 970. The same set-up also sees Skylake beat the AMD FX-8350 (paired with 1600MHz DDR3) in every game we tested bar Crysis 3 and The Witcher 3. Of course, those chips beg to be overclocked in a way that the i3 never can, but the bottom line is that in many gaming scenarios, the new i3 is capable of performance that belies its dual-core status. In short: choose your components carefully - get your board choice right, buy the right RAM, and the Core i3 6100 forms the basis of a great, easily upgradable gaming platform. Choice to GPU is also important - at this performance level, AMD's driver overhead is an issue and we would recommend an Nvidia card.

Is today's dual-core i3 faster than an old-gen i5? Here we compare the Core i3 6100 to the classic Core i5 2500K running at stock settings with some intriguing results.

All of which places the Core i3 6100 at the top of the table when it comes to sub-£100 processor performance, but the recent ability to overclock the previously locked Skylake CPUs can have an explosive effect on gaming performance - but do note that Intel is intent on closing down this loophole. With a base-clock tweak to 120MHz, and a voltage boost to 1.37v, we were solid at 4.44GHz. In our initial tests with the overclock, we restricted ourselves to the same 2666MHz DDR4, and it's safe to say that we were somewhat bewildered by the fact that some games saw tangible increases, but others saw only smaller increases to performance, not in line with a 20 per cent clock-speed boost.

Since the days of the second-gen Core architecture - Sandy Bridge - and the iconic Core i5 2500K, overclocking has by and large been very simple. CPU clock-speed is defined by two factors: the base clock (aka BCLK, typically 100MHz) and the multiplier, which varies between processor. The Core i3 6100 has a 37x multiplier, giving 3.7GHz (100x37=3700).

The K series Intel chips allow users to increase the multiplier on the motherboard BIOS, resulting in higher CPU clock-speeds. The more you push the multiplier, the more voltage is required and the more heat generated. We don't recommend pushing voltage any higher than 1.3v.

The so-called BCLK overclock for non-K chips like the Core i3 6100 is different. The multiplier remains locked, but the base clock can be increased from the stock 100MHz. In the case of the i3, we were comfortably stable at 1.37v with a 120MHz BCLK. Factor in the 37x multiplier and we're at 4.44GHz. Voltage needs to be increased until the system is stable.

Overclocking via BCLK means that the entire system is sped-up - and that includes RAM. In the memory settings, you'll find that the RAM has also increased in speed, and it will need to be reduced to match the rating of the modules. Alternatively, you can try pushing RAM harder and increasing voltage there in order to achieve higher levels of memory bandwidth.

The BCLK overclock has some advantages, but it should be stressed that this is a hack of sorts, and not supported by every Z170 board. You should also be aware that the more voltage you push into the CPU, the hotter it runs. The i3 6100 runs perfectly well at stock speeds with the supplied cooler - pushing voltage higher could move the heat threshold beyond its capabilities, meaning that a third party cooler is required.

Our Core i5 6500 review testing - which included overclocking - revealed that getting the most out of an overclock required scaling up RAM bandwidth too, so it was not surprising to see that the same thing is true for the i3 too. We used the same Corsair Vengeance sticks rated at 3000MHz here, and we overclocked to 3200MHz with no effort whatsoever. This produced the kind of scaling in performance we expect, and the big surprise here is a Core i3 6100 at 4.44GHz, paired with 3200MHz RAM can marginally outperform a Core i5 6500 at stock speeds, when combined with base-speed 2133MHz memory. Of course, the i5 can also be overclocked and it can also be combined with faster RAM and obviously it pulls ahead in these scenarios.

However, there is some additional food for thought: we're currently working on a feature that sees just far the classic 2011 Core i5 2500K can be pushed in terms of CPU and RAM overclocking and whether it can still power the latest games effectively, and let's just say that initial results suggest that the near-legendary Sandy Bridge quad-core chip gets pushed very, very hard by our top-end dual-core i3 overclock results. And that's with the i5 running at 4.6GHz with 2133MHz DDR3. Still, for now, here's the Skylake comparison:

Rich and Tom mull over Core i3 6100 overclocking potential, with stock and overclocked performance analysed with varying levels of DDR4 bandwidth.

1920x1080/Titan X OC (Avg FPS) Core i3 6100 (3.7GHz/ 2666MHz DDR4) Core i3 6100 (4.44GHz/ 2560MHz DDR4) Core i3 6100 (4.44GHz/ 3200MHz DDR4) Core i5 6500 (3.2GHz/ 2133MHz DDR4) Core i5 6500 (3.2GHz/ 3200MHz DDR4) Core i5 6500 (4.51GHz/ 3196MHz DDR4) The Witcher 3, Ultra, HairWorks Off, Custom AA Assassin's Creed Unity, Ultra High, FXAA Battlefield 4, Ultra, 4x MSAA Crysis 3, Very High, SMAA COD Advanced Warfare, Extra, FSMAA Grand Theft Auto 5, Ultra, no MSAA Far Cry 4, Ultra, SMAA Shadow of Mordor, Ultra, High Textures, FXAA
72.3 71.2 82.9 84.9 99.8 110.3
79.4 83.5 86.3 82.5 86.1 86.4
103.1 114.8 118.9 115.1 123.1 128.9
100.2 108.9 110.1 109.6 111.9 120.9
159.2 169.9 178.0 169.0 185.0 185.7
54.7 60.1 63.8 63.4 72.6 84.6
79.7 90.7 97.9 84.9 98.4 121.2
134.6 135.8 141.8 136.2 137.8 142.7

There was some disappointment that we couldn't overclock the Core i3 6100 when we first received it for review, but regardless, even at stock speeds it proves to be a highly capable performer - particularly when paired with faster memory. The only problem here is that a Z170 board is required, and although prices for 'premium' speed RAM are stabilising, you'll still be paying more for higher bandwidth modules. In both cases, we would suggest not skimping on this area of the build. A non-Z170 board can be upgraded to quad cores i5s and i7s, but what's clear is that you'll still be held back in terms of future-proofing without access to higher-speed memory and CPU overclocking.

In terms of our test results, Skylake's domination is self-evident, but we did make one pleasant surprise - AMD's cheaper FX-6300 managed to put up a decent challenge against the last-gen i3, which isn't bad bearing in mind it's a £78 processor that's just celebrated its third birthday - ancient in technological terms. However, generally speaking, with or without the benefit of faster RAM and overclocking, the Core i3 6100 is considerably faster, the surrounding chipset is light-years ahead in terms of features and upgrade paths, and with DDR4 prices dropping hard, upgrading to new-gen RAM isn't the budget deal-breaker it once was.

The Skylake Core i3 6100 is an accomplished product bearing in mind its price-tag, and in conclusion, it's worth emphasising just how important performance is at this end of the market. High-end games are becoming more CPU-intensive, making it much more likely that the processor will be the bottleneck during any given gaming session - especially so at the budget end of the market. Every cycle matters in the more demanding areas of many modern titles, and in our testing, the Core i3 6100 is best in class - and now it's overclockable, a great chip just got even better.

Read the Eurogamer.net reviews policy

Sometimes we include links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.

About the author

www.eurogamer.net

Core i3-6100 - Intel

From WikiChip

Core i3-6100 - Intel

< intel‎ | core i3

Core i3-6100 is a dual-core 64-bit x86 entry-level performance desktop microprocessor introduced by Intel in late 2015. This processor, which is based on the Skylake microarchitecture and is fabricated on a 14 nm process, has a base frequency of 3.7 GHz with a TDP of 51 W. The i3-6100 incorporates the HD Graphics 530 IGP operating at 350 MHz and a turbo frequency of 1.05 GHz. This chip supports up to 64 GiB of dual-channel DDR4-2133 ECC memory.

Contents

  • 1 Cache
  • 2 Memory controller
  • 3 Expansions
  • 4 Graphics
  • 5 Features

Cache[edit]

Main article: Skylake § Cache

[Edit/Modify Cache Info]

Cache Organization Cache is a hardware component containing a relatively small and extremely fast memory designed to speed up the performance of a CPU by preparing ahead of time the data it needs to read from a relatively slower medium such as main memory.The organization and amount of cache can have a large impact on the performance, power consumption, die size, and consequently cost of the IC.Cache is specified by its size, number of sets, associativity, block size, sub-block size, and fetch and write-back policies.

Note: All units are in kibibytes and mebibytes.

L1$L2$L3$
128 KiB0.125 MiB 131,072 B 1.220703e-4 GiB L1I$L1D$
64 KiB0.0625 MiB 65,536 B 6.103516e-5 GiB 2x32 KiB8-way set associative 
64 KiB0.0625 MiB 65,536 B 6.103516e-5 GiB 2x32 KiB8-way set associativewrite-back
512 KiB0.5 MiB 524,288 B 4.882812e-4 GiB  
 2x256 KiB4-way set associativewrite-back
3 MiB3,072 KiB 3,145,728 B 0.00293 GiB

Memory controller[edit]

[Edit/Modify Memory Info]

Integrated Memory Controller

Max TypeSupports ECCMax MemControllersChannelsMax BandwidthBandwidth
DDR3L-1600, DDR4-2133
Yes
64 GiB
1
2
31.79 GiB/s

Single 15.89 GiB/s

Double 31.79 GiB/s

Expansions[edit]

Graphics[edit]

[Edit/Modify IGP Info]

Integrated Graphics Information

GPUDesignerDevice IDExecution UnitsMax DisplaysMax MemoryFrequencyBurst FrequencyOutputMax ResolutionStandardsAdditional Features
HD Graphics 530
Intel0x1912
243
64 GiB65,536 MiB 67,108,864 KiB 68,719,476,736 B
350 MHz1,050 MHz
DisplayPort, Embedded DisplayPort, HDMI, DVI
HDMIDPeDP
4096x2304 @24 Hz
4096x2304 @60 Hz
4096x2304 @60 Hz
DirectXOpenGLOpenCLDPeDPHDMI
12
4.4
2.0
1.2
1.3
1.4a
Intel Quick Sync Video
Intel InTru 3D
Intel Clear Video
Intel Clear Video HD
[Edit] Skylake (Gen9) Hardware Accelerated Video Capabilities Codec Encode Decode Profiles Levels Max Resolution Profiles Levels Max Resolution
MPEG-2 (H.262) Main High 1080p (FHD) Main Main, High 1080p (FHD)
MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) High, Main 5.1 2160p (4K) Main, High, SHP, MHP 5.1 2160p (4K)
JPEG/MJPEG Baseline - 16k x 16k Baseline Unified 16k x 16k
HEVC (H.265) Main 5.1 2160p (4K) Main, Main 10 5.1 2160p (4K)
VC-1 Advanced, Main, Simple 3, High 3840x3840
VP8 Unified Unified - 0 Unified 1080p
VP9 0 Unified 2160p (4K)

Features[edit]

en.wikichip.org

Intel Core i3-6100 Review

Sections

Pros

  • Fast single-core performance
  • Low power requirements
  • Skylake for under £100

Cons

  • Can’t compete in multi-core benchmarks
  • A little slower in some games

Key Specifications

  • Review Price: £94.00
  • Two-cores with Hyper-Threading
  • 3.57GHz clock speed
  • 6th generation Core, Skylake architecture
  • 14nm manufacturing process
  • 3MB cache

Skylake is Intel’s latest processor architecture and, not surprisingly, it debuted in expensive quad-core chips: the Intel Core i5-6600K and Core i7-6700K took the lead.

Now, though, a full range of dual and quad-core processors is available, starting from the £95.99 Core i3-6100T. The Core i3-6100 sits just above that entry level model, coming in at £98.99. It’s only a dual-core part but crucially it runs at a fairly rapid 3.7GHz and it includes Intel’s Hyper-Threading technology for improved multi-threaded performance.

The upshot is a processor that might be ideal for those looking to build a fast rig but that don’t need the multi-core power of a quad-core – believe it or not that’s actually most of us, including gamers.

Intel Core i3-6100 – Specs and Design

The Core i3-6100 is a full Skylake processor – not just a renamed older generation part. As such it has a host of new features, most of which you can read about in our full Intel Skylake review.

The main jump over previous generation chips, though, is that the manufacturing process has improved from the 20nm of Haswell (4th generation Core) to 14nm, and upgrades to the silicon are designed to improve performance while reducing the amount of electricity required.

Related: The Best Graphics CardsThis is still a lower-end chip though, so there are some compromises. The most obvious limitation, aside from there only being two cores is that Core i3 parts don’t have Turbo Boost.

That means they can’t dynamically overclock to run at higher speeds. In contrast, something like the Core i5-6400 can Turbo Boost from its 2.7GHz base clock to 3.3GHz, while the i5-6600K can tweak itself to a top speed of 3.9GHz.

However, that’s part of the secret to why the i3-6100 may be ideal for some users, as it already runs at 3.7GHz even without Turbo Boost. That’s pretty fast and, as most programs and games are still single-threaded, single-core speed is still the dominant factor in day to day computing.

Nonetheless, there are a few other areas where the i3-6100’s cost-saving is clear. It’s not a K-edition chip so doesn’t have an unlocked multipler for easy overclocking – it will overclock a bit but it’s much more difficult. Halving the number of cores also means it only has half the amount of L2 cache, from 1MB to 512KB, plus its L3 cache is only 3MB. That’s 1MB less than some of the more expensive Core i3 chips and half as much as the Core i5 chips.

The latest i3 is equipped with the Intel HD Graphics 530 integrated core. The 530 variant sits in the middle of Intel’s new integrated range, and it’s got 24 execution units and a clock that runs between 350MHz and 1,050MHz. This is another area where the Core i3 could overhaul more affordable Core i5 chips like the i5-6400. That CPU has the same HD Graphics 530 GPU, but it’s held back to a top speed of 950MHz.

Thanks to only having two cores, the i3’s power requirements are modest. The i3-6100 has a 51W TDP, which compares well with the 65W or 91W required by different Core i5s. Rival AMD chips, meanwhile, require 95W or 125W.

The Core i3’s £94 price puts it right between the £90 AMD A10-7700K and A10-7850K, which costs £99.Both AMD parts are unlocked, so they can be overclocked, and both have impressive specifications elsewhere. The former part runs at between 3.4GHz and 3.8GHz using AMD’s boosting technology, and the latter ranges between 3.7GHz and 4GHz. Both have four native cores, both have more L2 cache than the i3-6100, and both have variants of AMD’s Radeon R7 graphics – the cheaper chip has 384 stream processors, and the pricier part has 512 stream processors.

The Core i3-6100 also faces competition from AMD’s FX processors. The closest competitor is the FX 6350, which costs £99 and has three cores that can address six concurrent threads. That chip has 8MB of L3 cache and a 3.9GHz core that can overclock itself to 4.2GHz, although it’s not unlocked for manual overclocking. Spend a little more and the £114 FX 8320 Black Edition arrives: an unlocked, quad-core chip with a 3.5GHz core and a 4GHz top speed. Note, though, that AMD FX chips don’t have any integrated graphics.Buy Now at Amazon.co.uk from £92 | Amazon.com from $117.99

Intel Core i3-6100 – The Skylake Ecosystem

Skylake doesn’t just herald a new range of processors – Intel has released a new socket and chipset alongside these chips. The wealth of new hardware is a double-edged sword: it means upgrading to the new processors is more expensive, but it ushers in a range of new features.

The Z170 chipset makes several key changes designed to future-proof PCs. It has many more PCIe 3.0 lanes than previous chipsets – 20 in total – which means there’s more bandwidth available for graphics cards, PCIe-based storage devices and Thunderbolt peripherals.

Related: The Best Intel Z170 Motherboards

There’s more support for USB 3.0, better networking options, and Thunderbolt 3.0 debuts here – along with better overclocking options. Support for DDR4 memory is also included.

There are other chipsets that have more restrictive feature sets. Parts like h270, B150 and h210 don’t support multiplier-based overclocking, and include fewer USB 3.0 connections. They also have lesser support for PCIe 3.0 slots, with fewer lanes – and some don’t support RAID options for storage.

The arrival of a new socket and chipset also means the market is flooded with new motherboards. Even the cheapest new boards have more features than older models, from PCIe 3.0 slots to M.2 SSD connectors. They also tend to have more USB 3.0 (including the latest Type-C versions) and SATA connectors too – perfect for taking advantage of Z170’s bandwidth improvements.

Z170-based boards aren’t cheap. The most affordable PCBs start at just over £80, and for that money you’ll get a more basic feature set: fewer PCIe slots and USB connectors, less likelihood of M.2 storage support, and a more modest backplate. At the top end of the market are extreme gaming and overclocking boards that cost over £200 – they come with every port, slot and connector imaginable, as well as on-board buttons, displays and overclocking features.

Boards with the h270, B150 and h210 chipsets are far more affordable. Slabs with the h210 chipset cost less than £60, and most boards with h270 and B150 come in under £100.

This does mean that costs can add up once a new motherboard is added to the mix – but the Skylake ecosystem still compares well to AMD’s offerings. Its A-Series APUs and FX processors don’t support DDR4 memory, for starters. The A88X chipset included on most APU boards also lags behind on USB 3.0 ports and PCI-Express 3.0 lanes.

Mike has worked as a technology journalist for more than a decade, writing for most of the UK’s most well-known websites and magazines. During his time writing about technology he’s developed obsessio…

Unlike other sites, we thoroughly test every product we review. We use industry standard tests in order to compare features properly. We’ll always tell you what we find. We never, ever accept money to review a product. Tell us what you think - send your emails to the Editor.

www.trustedreviews.com

The Best CPU for the Money: Intel Core i3-6100 Skylake Tested

Early this year we compared AMD's $150 quad-core FX-8320E processor with Intel's $150 Core i3-4360 and $185 Core i5-4430. On paper it looked like a no brainer: the FX-8320E boasts 8 threads capable of running at up to 4GHz out of the box and is fully unlocked to boot.

The Haswell-based Core i3-4360 is a dual-core processor backed by Intel's HyperThreading technology for four threads and unlike AMD's chip, the i3 is locked at 3.7GHz with no hope of being overclocked. It's a similar story with the pricier Core i5-4430, which can only clock its four cores as high as 3.2GHz and without HT support there are only four threads available.

After years of benchmarking AMD's Piledriver-based processors, it's no secret that they aren't the most efficient. That said, we had never looked at power consumption so closely before, especially when overclocking.

We ran the FX-8320E at a reasonable overclock of 4.6GHz and even at that frequency it was for the most part slower than the Core i3-4360 when gaming and shockingly when encoding. Worse still, the overclock made the FX-8320E consume around 60% more power on average.

By the end, it became clear that wise consumers would be looking at the Core i3 and Core i5. Gamers will find the Core i3 to be the better value option, while the Core i5 is better equipped for heavier tasks like encoding.

In the nine months since we published that article, the FX-8320E is still $150 and AMD's go-to option for budget quad-core computing without integrated graphics.

Meanwhile, the landscape has shifted on Intel's side of the fence as we've recently seen the arrival of its new Skylake-based Core i3 and Pentium processors, the first of which was the Core i3-6100. At $125, the new dual-core chip comes clocked at the same 3.7GHz as the Haswell 4360/4170 models, except the i3-6100 has the advantage of being even more efficient thanks to an updated design using the 14nm process.

After being disappointed in August by the marginal performance between Skylake and Haswell Core i7s, we're interested in seeing how the i3-6100 stacks up against the older i3-4360, as well as the i5-4430 and the overclocked FX-8320E.

Synthetic Benchmarks

Intel's specification for the Core i3-6100 calls for a maximum DDR4 memory speed of 2133MHz, so technically by using any memory faster than that you are overclocking. Moreover, the cheaper h270, Q170 and B150 motherboards are all limited to 2133MHz memory support. Therefore, in order to run faster memory users will be required to shell out for a Z170 board, which isn't going to be an option for some budget-conscious consumers.

In an effort to cover all bases we benchmarked the Core i3-6100 with both DDR4-2133 and DDR4-3000 memory on a Z170 motherboard to see what kind of difference consumers can expect to find when running different memory speeds.

Here we see a rather significant 31% boost in memory bandwidth when increasing the frequency by 41% from DDR4-2133 to DDR4-3000. Using DDR4-2133 memory the Core i3-6100 is still 8% faster than the Core i3-4360 which happens to be running DDR3-2133 memory. Once armed with DDR4-3000 memory, the Core i3-6100 is able to outpace the Core i5-4430 by a small margin.

The Skylake Core i3-6100 shows a notable improvement in L1 and L2 cache performance over the Haswell Core i3-4360. This isn't entirely surprising as we found a similar thing when comparing the Core i7-4790K to the new Core i7-6700K. The Core i3-6100 is considerably faster than the 4360 when comparing L2 cache performance and not a great deal slower than the Core i5-4430.

Using DDR4-2133 memory, the Core i3-6100 provides only a limited performance bump over the Core i3-4360 in the Cinebench R15 single and multi-threaded tests. Boosting the memory speed to 3000MHz had a minor impact on performance, though it did help the 6100 distance itself a little more from the 4360.

www.techspot.com

Intel Core i3-6100U

The Intel Core i3-6100U is part of the Skylake generation processors from Intel and also representing the ULV (ultra low voltage) series. The chip doesn’t support the Turbo Boost feature for dynamic frequency adjustment but has the important Hyper-Threading feature that emulates one virtual core for each physical one and thus establishing up to four threads. The two clocks run at 2.3 GHz and they are manufactured using the 14nm FinFET process.

The CPU also includes the Intel HD Graphics 520 iGPU and GT2 being its code name. It has 24 EUs (Execution Units) and are clocked at 300 MHz and can go up to 1000 MHz. The whole SoC draws approximately 15W at full throttle and that includes the memory controller (DDR4-2133/DDR3L-1600), the CPU and the iGPU. The chip also supports cTDP down so the TDP can go as low as 7.5W but that depends on the OEM and it affects heat dispersion and performance.

Check the prices of all notebooks equipped with Core i3-6100U: Buy from Amazon.com

Ranking Base / Max CPU frequency Number of cores Instructions type TDP Integrated GPU Base GPU frequency Max. operating temperature Memory channels
129
2.30 - 2.30 GHz
2
64 bits
15 W
Intel HD Graphics 520
300 MHz
100 °C
2
Released Core / Architecture Logical Cores (Threads) LL cache Lithography Official website Max. GPU frequency Memory Type Max Memory
Q3 2015
Skylake
4
3072 KB
14 nm
ark.intel.com
1000 MHz
Dual-Channel DDR3L-1600/LPDDR3-1866/DDR4-2133
32 GB

Intel Core i3-6100U - benchmark tests

Intel Core i3-6100U vs competitors:

See all Top Laptop CPU Rankings

laptopmedia.com


Смотрите также