home » Health and beauty » Core i3 6100 comparison. Iron experiment: older Core i3 versus younger Core i5 in games. Overclocked test results

Core i3 6100 comparison. Iron experiment: older Core i3 versus younger Core i5 in games. Overclocked test results

disadvantages

There is none of themComment

An excellent choice for everyday tasks and as a workhorse, even games are not very sophisticated pulls.

In general, AMD has fx6350 in the same price range, there are certainly more cores, but they are not quite full-fledged, because the computing unit is one to two cores and the cores themselves are 1.5 times weaker and there is no integrated video. The FX 6350 is superior only in multithreading, and even then not by much and not always.

Who does not really need multithreading (some games, video conversion), and these are rather specific tasks - you can safely take it. Who can do without multithreading - look towards the FX 83XX, and even better towards the i7 if finances allow.

18 9

Cool, inexpensive, embedded videodisadvantages Comment

Good value for money. Not heated. Before that, there was a Phenom II X2 550 - that still a furnace, especially under load. From Fenom, the Noctua NH-C12P SE14 cooler remains, now it cools the core i3. The fan runs at 700 rpm, heat pipes at room temperature. The system fan was thrown out, there was one more on the power supply. The processor is used with a built-in video core, the temperature according to BIOS data is 35 degrees.

Windows Performance Index:
Processor: 7.3
Graphics: 6.9

The processor was bought to create the most silent PC. Copes with its task.

Complain Did the review help? 21 9

disadvantages

Comment

From my experience of using this stone, I am satisfied with it! If you are building a computer from scratch with a small budget, or decided to upgrade to a new platform, the younger i3 6100 is the best choice. In the future it will be possible to upgrade to i5 or i7. If you are not involved in video editing - i3 6100 is your choice among the younger Skylake line!
I recommend buying!

Complain Did the review help? 17 14

became more affordable - finally fell in price and almost equalized in price with i3 4170. DDR 4 2133 MHz support. 47W heat dissipation.disadvantages

would have been a little cheaper.Comment

to collect a new computer - the very thing, since it needs a mother on a "new" 1151 socket. prices have almost leveled off, and who wants to experiment will console their curiosity. the processor surprised and revealed 100% Asus gtx 950 OC. and he himself works by 50-60%. then this pebble will most likely be able to open the gtx 970. but it costs 2 times more than 950. As you get rich, 950 will be replaced. and a little later, you can change the i3 to i5 (since 4 full-fledged cores will look more interesting in new programs and games).
since this is the youngest model (I do not take into account the Pentium) on a skyline (at the moment it costs 10,000 rubles) - my advice is to take gtx 960 (15,000 rubles) and overclock the vidyuhu. or buy an already overclocked strix version from asus (16,600 rubles) or the same thing with an analogue of r9 380.

Description of test systems and testing methods

We decided to get acquainted with the dual-core Skylake processors by taking three models that are fundamentally different in characteristics: the senior and junior modifications in the Core i3 line, which differ not only in clock frequencies, but also in the amount of cache memory of the third level, as well as the average processor of the Pentium family. In total, three dual-core LGA1151 processors took part in the testing: Core i3-6320, Core i3-6100 and Pentium G4500. Below we provide screenshots of CPU-Z, where you can once again see the main characteristics of these models.

Processors of the same class (in terms of price) for other common platforms: LGA1150, Socket AM3 + and Socket FM2 were chosen as rivals for this trio. As a result, the list of equipment used for testing turned out to be quite extensive and, in addition to the main characters, also included their dual-core predecessors of the Haswell generation, low-end quad-core processors for the LGA1150 platform, as well as six-core and quad-core AMD processors belonging to both the FX family and the A10 and A8 families. :

Processors:

Intel Core i3-6320 (Skylake, 2 cores + HT, 3.9 GHz, 4 MB L3);
Intel Core i3-6100 (Skylake, 2 cores + HT, 3.7 GHz, 3 MB L3);
Intel Pentium G4500 (Skylake, 2 cores, 3.5 GHz, 3 MB L3);
Intel Core i5-4460 (Haswell, 4 cores, 3.2-3.4 GHz, 6 MB L3);
Intel Core i3-4370 (Haswell, 2 cores + HT, 3.8 GHz, 4 MB L3);
Intel Core i3-4170 (Haswell, 2 cores + HT, 3.7 GHz, 3 MB L3);
Intel Pentium G3470 (Haswell, 2 cores, 3.6 GHz, 3 MB L3);
AMD FX-6350 (Vishera, 6 cores, 3.9-4.2 GHz, 6 MB L3);
AMD A10-7870K (Kaveri, 4 cores, 3.9-4.1 GHz, 2 × 2 MB L2);
AMD A8-7670K (Kaveri, 4 cores, 3.6-3.9 GHz, 2 × 2 MB L2).
CPU cooler: Noctua NH-U14S.

Motherboards:

ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger (LGA1151, Intel Z170);
ASUS Z97-Pro (LGA1150, Intel Z97);
ASUS A88X-Pro (Socket FM2 +, AMD A88X);
ASUS M5A99FX Pro R2.0 (Socket AM3 +, AMD 990FX + SB950).

Memory:

2 × 8 GB DDR3-2133 SDRAM, 9-11-11-31 (G.Skill F3-2133C9D-16GTX);
2 × 8 GB DDR4-2666 SDRAM, 15-15-15-35 (Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2A2666C16R).

Video card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (6 GB / 384-bit GDDR5, 1000-1076 / 7010 MHz).

Disk subsystem: Kingston HyperX Savage 480 GB (SHSS37A / 480G).

Power Supply: Corsair RM850i \u200b\u200b(80 Plus Gold, 850W).

Testing was performed on Microsoft Windows 10 Enterprise Build 10586 using the following set of drivers:

AMD Chipset Drivers Crimson Edition 15.11;
AMD Radeon Software Crimson Edition 15.11;
Intel Chipset Driver 10.1.1.8;
Intel Graphics Driver 15.40.12.4326;
Intel Management Engine Interface Driver 11.0.0.1157;
NVIDIA GeForce 355.98 Driver.

Description of the tools used to measure computational performance:

Benchmarks:

BAPCo SYSmark 2014 ver 1.5 - testing in Office Productivity scenarios (office work: preparing texts, processing spreadsheets, working with e-mail and visiting Internet sites), Media Creation (working on multimedia content - creating a commercial using pre-shot digital images and video) and Data / Financial Analysis (statistical analysis and investment forecasting based on a certain financial model).

Applications:

Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 - performance testing for graphics processing. This measures the average execution time of a test script that is a creatively reworked Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed \u200b\u200bTest that includes typical processing of four 24-megapixel digital camera images.
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 - performance testing in batch processing of a series of images in RAW format. The test scenario includes post-processing and export to JPEG with a resolution of 1920 × 1080 and a maximum quality of two hundred 12-megapixel RAW images taken with a Nikon D300 digital camera.
Autodesk 3ds max 2016 - testing final rendering speed. This measures the time it takes to render at 1920 × 1080 using the mental ray renderer of a standard Hummer scene.
Blender 2.76 - testing the speed of the final rendering in one of the popular free packages for creating three-dimensional graphics. The time taken to build the final model from Blender Cycles Benchmark rev4 is measured.
dBpoweramp Music Converter R15.3 - testing the speed of transcoding audio files. This measures the speed at which converting FLAC files to MP3 format with maximum compression quality.
Microsoft Edge 20.10240.16384.0 - Testing the performance of Internet applications built using modern technologies. A specialized test WebXPRT 2015 is used, which implements algorithms that are actually used in Internet applications in HTML5 and JavaScript.
WinRAR 5.30 - testing the speed of archiving. The time taken by the archiver to compress a directory with various files with a total volume of 1.7 GB is measured. The maximum compression ratio is used.
x264 r2597 - testing the speed of video transcoding to H.264 / AVC format. The original [email protected] AVC video file with a bit rate of about 30 Mbps.
x265 1.7 + 357 8bpp - testing the speed of video transcoding into the promising H.265 / HEVC format. To evaluate the performance, the same video file is used as in the x264 transcoding speed test.

Games:

Grand Theft Auto V. Settings for 1280 × 800 resolution: DirectX Version \u003d DirectX 11, FXAA \u003d Off, MSAA \u003d Off, NVIDIA TXAA \u003d Off, Population Density \u003d Maximum, Population Variety \u003d Maximum, Distance Scaling \u003d Maximum, Texture Quality \u003d Very High, Shader Quality \u003d Very High, Shadow Quality \u003d Very High, Reflection Quality \u003d Ultra, Reflection MSAA \u003d Off, Water Quality \u003d Very High, Particles Quality \u003d Very High, Grass Quality \u003d Ultra, Soft Shadow \u003d Softest, Post FX \u003d Ultra, In-Game Depth Of Field Effects \u003d On, Anisotropic Filtering \u003d x16, Ambient Occlusion \u003d High, Tessellation \u003d Very High, Long Shadows \u003d On, High Resolution Shadows \u003d On, High Detail Streaming While Flying \u003d On, Extended Distance Scaling \u003d Maximum, Extended Shadows Distance \u003d Maximum. Settings for 1920 × 1080 resolution: DirectX Version \u003d DirectX 11, FXAA \u003d Off, MSAA \u003d x4, NVIDIA TXAA \u003d Off, Population Density \u003d Maximum, Population Variety \u003d Maximum, Distance Scaling \u003d Maximum, Texture Quality \u003d Very High, Shader Quality \u003d Very High, Shadow Quality \u003d Very High, Reflection Quality \u003d Ultra, Reflection MSAA \u003d x4, Water Quality \u003d Very High, Particles Quality \u003d Very High, Grass Quality \u003d Ultra, Soft Shadow \u003d Softest, Post FX \u003d Ultra, In-Game Depth Of Field Effects \u003d On, Anisotropic Filtering \u003d x16, Ambient Occlusion \u003d High, Tessellation \u003d Very High, Long Shadows \u003d On, High Resolution Shadows \u003d On, High Detail Streaming While Flying \u003d On, Extended Distance Scaling \u003d Maximum, Extended Shadows Distance \u003d Maximum.
F1 2015. Settings for 1280 × 800 resolution: Ultra High Quality, 0xAA, 16xAF. Settings for 1920 × 1080 resolution: Ultra High Quality, SMAA + TAA, 16xAF. The Melbourne track is used in testing.
Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor. Settings for 1280 × 800 resolution: Lighting Quality \u003d High, Mesh Quality \u003d Ultra, Motion Blur \u003d Camera and Objects, Shadow Quality \u003d High, Texture Filtering \u003d Ultra, Texture Quality \u003d High, Ambient Occlusion \u003d Medium, Vegetation Range \u003d Ultra, Depth of Field \u003d On, Order Independent Transparency \u003d On, Tessellation \u003d On. Settings for 1920 × 1080 resolution: Lighting Quality \u003d High, Mesh Quality \u003d Ultra, Motion Blur \u003d Camera and Objects, Shadow Quality \u003d Ultra, Texture Filtering \u003d Ultra, Texture Quality \u003d Ultra, Ambient Occlusion \u003d High, Vegetation Range \u003d Ultra, Depth of Field \u003d On, Order Independent Transparency \u003d On, Tessellation \u003d On.
Thief. Settings for 1280 × 800 resolution: Texture Quality \u003d Very High, Shadow Quality \u003d Very High, Depth-of-field Quality \u003d High, Texture Filtering Quality \u003d 8x Anisotropic, SSAA \u003d Off, Screenspace Reflections \u003d On, Parallax Occlusion Mapping \u003d On, FXAA \u003d Off, Contact Hardening Shadows \u003d On, Tessellation \u003d On, Image-based Reflection \u003d On. Settings for 1920 × 1080 resolution: Texture Quality \u003d Very High, Shadow Quality \u003d Very High, Depth-of-field Quality \u003d High, Texture Filtering Quality \u003d 8x Anisotropic, SSAA \u003d High, Screenspace Reflections \u003d On, Parallax Occlusion Mapping \u003d On, FXAA \u003d On, Contact Hardening Shadows \u003d On, Tessellation \u003d On, Image-based Reflection \u003d On.
Total War: Attila. Settings for 1280 × 800 resolution: Anti-Aliasing \u003d Off, Texture Resolution \u003d Ultra; Texture Filtering \u003d Anisotropic 4x, Shadows \u003d Max. Quality, Water \u003d Max. Quality, Sky \u003d Max. Quality, Depth of Field \u003d Off, Particle Effects \u003d Max. Quality, Screen space reflections \u003d Max. Quality, Grass \u003d Max. Quality, Trees \u003d Max. Quality, Terrain \u003d Max. Quality, Unit Details \u003d Max. Quality, Building Details \u003d Max. Quality, Unit Size \u003d Ultra, Porthole Quality \u003d 3D, Unlimited video memory \u003d Off, V-Sync \u003d Off, SSAO \u003d On, Distortion Effects \u003d On, Vignette \u003d Off, Proximity fading \u003d On, Blood \u003d On. Settings for 1920 × 1080 resolution: Maximum Quality.

Like all other LGA1151 processors, the new dual-core processors are on average 10 percent faster than their LGA1150 predecessors. And this is the expected result. As we have said many times in previous reviews, the Skylake microarchitecture in terms of computing performance offers not too serious improvements over Haswell, and all the basic characteristics of the Core i3 and Pentium are inherited almost unchanged from generation to generation. True, in the new dual-core processors Intel slightly increased the clock speeds and added support for VT-d, and in the Pentium it included AES instructions, but this had a minimal effect on the final picture.

However, this does not mean at all that modern dual-core processors do not deserve attention. On the contrary, tests show that the older Core i3 generations of Skylake are capable of delivering even higher performance in many applications than the lower Core i5 with Haswell design. And this is natural: the Hyper-Threading technology, which compensates for the halving of the number of computing cores in Core i3, demonstrates excellent efficiency on the "wide" Intel microarchitecture, and the frequencies of the older Core i3 models have already grown to almost 4 GHz. As a result, in most applications, including many games, processors like the Core i3-6320 or Core i3-6100 do not seem like a compromise at all. On the contrary, such offerings seem to be a very profitable basis for a modern mid-range PC. In fact, the younger Core i5 can be better than the older Core i3 only in one case: when the system is busy with heavy multi-threaded loads like nonlinear editing or video conversion. In the vast majority of situations, Core i3 is a very decent basis for a personal computer.

However, everything said in the previous paragraph about Core i3 cannot be extended to Pentium, which by all indications belongs to a lower class. They lack Hyper-Threading technology and lack support for AVX instructions. Because of this, the performance of Pentium in real tasks is noticeably worse than that of low-end Core i3s, and they cannot claim a worthy place in mid-range systems. Of course, from the point of view of computing performance, modern Pentiums are clearly faster than AMD's APUs, but by the standards of Intel processors, they can only be attributed to budget solutions.

At the same time, almost all dual-core processors in the LGA1151 version, including both Core i3 and Pentium, received the new Intel HD Graphics 530 graphics core, which makes them very interesting to use in systems without a discrete graphics card. The performance of this core has significantly increased compared to Intel graphics of previous generations, and now it has become quite sufficient for most online multiplayer games of the level of World of Tanks or Dota 2. Of course, AMD's older APUs can still offer greater performance, but, for example, the A6 -7400K was defeated even by the budget Pentium G4500.

And in conclusion, it remains to recall the only, but rather unpleasant, drawback of dual-core Skylakes. Despite their decent performance, interesting integrated graphics core and good energy efficiency, they cannot be considered as an enthusiast processor. Intel has locked all multipliers and BCLK frequencies in these CPUs, so it is impossible to overclock either Core i3 or Pentium.

Desktop Skylake Dual Core

Before we begin to get acquainted with the specific formal characteristics of the new Core i3 and Pentium models, I would like to remind you of the global differences that exist between Intel processors of different series. After all, the transition from Haswell to Skylake in these principles has not changed anything at all.

Firstly, as has been said above many times, Core i3 and Pentium are characterized by the fact that they are processors with only a couple of cores. The Core i7 and Core i5 for the LGA 1151 platform have twice as many cores, and this is the main reason why the Core i3 and Pentium are usually considered to be in the lower class. However, this is not all.

So, secondly, Core i3 and Pentium lack Turbo Boost technology. This means that the clock speed of these dual-core processors is constant and does not depend on the load. Quad-core processors can automatically overclock if not all of their cores are busy with work, while Core i3 and Pentium operate at the same frequency, regardless of whether the application running in the foreground creates a single-threaded or multi-threaded load.

Thirdly, Core i3 and Pentium are equipped with smaller cache memory compared to their older counterparts. And this is not strange. The Core architecture assumes the allocation of 2 MB of shared L3 cache for each core, so the maximum size of the L3 cache that is possible with a dual-core processor is 4 MB. Individual modifications of dual-core processors can also have L3 cache reduced to 3 MB. The volume of the third-level cache in Core i7 and Core i5, we recall, is 6 or 8 MB.

Fourthly, different processor lines have differences in support for Hyper-Threading technology. The Core i3 has this technology, but the Pentium does not. This leads to the fact that the Core i3, like the Core i5, is perceived in the operating system as a four-core processor, while the Pentium can only execute two threads at a time.

As a result, the range of dual-core Skylake for desktop systems, minus specialized energy-efficient models, looks like this.

There are not too many fundamental changes in characteristics compared to Haswell of the same class. Yes, the new dual-core processors have received an updated Skylake microarchitecture and are manufactured according to a "thinner" 14-nm process technology with second-generation 3D transistors. The introduction of the new microarchitecture led to the change of the processor socket to LGA 1151, the emergence of support for dual-channel DDR4-2133 SDRAM and the transition to a faster DMI3 bus for interfacing with logic sets. But all the basic characteristics of the new processors have remained approximately the same as they were before, or have changed quite insignificantly.

So, with the transition to the Skylake design, the maximum frequency in the Core i3 line increased to only 3.9 GHz, that is, only by 100 MHz, and the cache memory of both the second and third levels retained its usual size. Of the positive changes, it is worth mentioning only a slight decrease in the typical heat dissipation, which occurred due to the movement of the power converter from the processor outside, plus an increase in the maximum amount of supported memory - now the CPU can work with an array of 64 GB DDR4 SDRAM. In addition, the latest Core i3 processors, unlike their predecessors, received full support for virtualization technologies, including VT-d.

In the Pentium line, the changes are somewhat different. The maximum CPU frequency has not changed compared to Haswell - the older model runs at the same 3.6 GHz as before. The 3-MB cache of the third level also remained unchanged. But the typical heat dissipation has slightly decreased and the usual Skylake support for 64 GB DDR4 memory appeared. But, perhaps, the most positive innovation is the addition of AES-NI cryptographic instructions to the Pentium, which were previously disabled in the processors of this line. True, AVX commands are still not supported in the new generation Pentium.

Separately, it should be noted that there is no processor successor among the new Pentium. Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition, which made it possible to build very inexpensive overclocking systems with an LGA 1150 processor socket. Alas, Intel did not make any such offer for the LGA 1151. And, most likely, it won't do it anymore, because the release of an unlocked Pentium was a one-time action timed to coincide with the brand's anniversary.

However, among the specifications of the new Core i3 and Pentium, you can find such lines in which the changes are not evolutionary, but revolutionary. They just do not concern the processor part, but affect the integrated graphics core. Intel has recently devoted much attention to improving the integrated graphics in the processor, and the new Intel HD Graphics 530 core, which can be found in the overwhelming mass of dual-core Skylakes, represents a noticeable step forward compared to those cores that are integrated into Haswell generation dual-core processors. To illustrate this fact, it is enough to mention that the number of Intel HD Graphics 530 executive devices has been increased to 24 pieces, while the graphics core of the older dual-core Haswell was based on 20 executive devices.

In addition, graphics of the GT2 level - Intel HD Graphics 530 - are now used not only in older Core i3s, as it was before. Now it has penetrated into younger models of dual-core processors, including some Pentiums, which previously could boast only of a low-power GT1-class core. Thus, with the advent of dual-core Skylakes in the LGA 1151 version, Intel is making an even more decisive attack on the low-cost APU market. The new Core i3 and Pentium still cannot compete with the older Kaveri processors, but for AMD A6 class processors they can pose a very real threat.

However, acquaintance with the capabilities of integrated graphics cores is beyond the scope of this study, and we will pay attention to them a little later. Here we will talk exclusively about the computational potential of the dual-core Skylake. For practical tests, we were able to get three processors: an older dual-core Core i3-6320, an average modification of the Core i3-6100 and a representative of the younger Pentium G4400 series. Detailed characteristics of these CPUs can be seen in the screenshots below of the CPU-Z diagnostic utility.

Core i3-6320:

Core i3-6100:

Pentium G4400:

How we tested

With the Skylake generation dual-core processors obtained by our laboratory, we compared their dual-core predecessors of the Haswell generation, the junior quad-core processors for the LGA 1151 and LGA 1150 platforms, as well as AMD processors of similar cost, belonging to both the FX family and the A10 and A8 families. As a result, the list of components involved in testing is very extensive:

Processors:

Intel Core i5-6400 (Skylake, 4 cores, 2.7-3.3 GHz, 6 MB L3);
Intel Core i3-6320 (Skylake, 2 cores + HT, 3.9 GHz, 4 MB L3);
Intel Core i3-6100 (Skylake, 2 cores + HT, 3.7 GHz, 3 MB L3);
Intel Pentium G4400 (Skylake, 2 cores, 3.3 GHz, 3 MB L3);
Intel Core i5-4460 (Haswell, 4 cores, 3.2-3.4 GHz, 6 MB L3);
Intel Core i3-4370 (Haswell, 2 cores + HT, 3.8 GHz, 4 MB L3);
Intel Core i3-4170 (Haswell, 2 cores + HT, 3.7 GHz, 3 MB L3);
Intel Pentium G3470 (Haswell, 2 cores, 3.6 GHz, 3 MB L3);
AMD FX-8370 (Vishera, 8 cores, 4.0-4.2 GHz, 8 MB L3);
AMD FX-6350 (Vishera, 6 cores, 3.9-4.2 GHz, 6 MB L3);
AMD A10-7870K (Kaveri, 4 cores, 3.9-4.1 GHz, 2x2 MB L2);
AMD A8-7670K (Kaveri, 4 cores, 3.6-3.9 GHz, 2x2 MB L2).

CPU cooler: Noctua NH-U14S.
Motherboards:

ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger (LGA 1151, Intel Z170);
ASUS Z97-Pro (LGA 1150, Intel Z97);
ASUS A88X-Pro (Socket FM2 +, AMD A88X);
ASUS M5A99FX Pro R2.0 (Socket AM3 +, AMD 990FX + SB950).

Memory:

2x8 GB DDR3-2133 SDRAM, 9-11-11-31 (G.Skill F3-2133C9D-16GTX);
2x8 GB DDR4-2666 SDRAM, 15-15-15-35 (Corsair Vengeance LPX CMK16GX4M2A2666C16R).

Video card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (6 GB / 384-bit GDDR5, 1000-1076 / 7010 MHz).
Disk subsystem: Kingston HyperX Savage 480 GB (SHSS37A / 480G).
PSU: Corsair RM850i \u200b\u200b(80 Plus Gold, 850W).

Testing was performed on Microsoft Windows 10 Enterprise Build 10240 using the following set of drivers:

AMD Chipset Drivers Crimson Edition;
Intel Chipset Driver 10.1.1.8;
Intel Management Engine Interface Driver 11.0.0.1157;
NVIDIA GeForce 355.98 Driver.

Performance

Overall performance

To assess the performance of processors in common tasks, we traditionally use the Bapco SYSmark test suite, which simulates the user's work in real common modern office programs and applications for creating and processing digital content. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe test is very simple: it produces a single metric that characterizes the weighted average speed of a computer during everyday use. After the release of the Windows 10 operating system, this benchmark was once again updated, and now we are using the latest version - SYSmark 2014 1.5.

The results we got in SYSmark 2014 1.5 are very revealing. The improvements that the Skylake microarchitecture brought with it increased the performance of dual-core processors by about 10 percent. The Core i3-6320 outperforms the Core i3-4370 by about this amount, and the Core i3-6100 outperforms the Core i3-4170. As for the Pentium G4400, this is not the top model in the line, but, nevertheless, it performs at the level of the older Pentium of the Haswell generation, which can also be considered a quite worthy achievement.

From a qualitative point of view, the progress that has taken place has managed to make the dual-core processor Core i3-6320 not only generally faster than the younger four-core Haswell generation, but also better than AMD processors with a large number of cores. And this clearly suggests that Skylake dual-core processors can offer sufficient performance for the needs of today's applications.

However, it should be borne in mind that the indicator in SYSmark 2014 1.5 is a kind of weighted average performance metric and in some situations the state of affairs can be radically different. And we will see this further, in tests in applications.

A deeper understanding of the SYSmark 2014 1.5 results can provide an introduction to the performance estimates obtained in various scenarios of using the system. The Office Productivity script simulates typical office work: preparing word, processing spreadsheets, working with e-mail, and surfing the Internet. The script uses the following set of applications: Adobe Acrobat XI Pro, Google Chrome 32, Microsoft Excel 2013, Microsoft OneNote 2013, Microsoft Outlook 2013, Microsoft PowerPoint 2013, Microsoft Word 2013, WinZip Pro 17.5 Pro.

The Media Creation scenario simulates the creation of a commercial using pre-shot digital images and video. The popular packages Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended, Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 and Trimble SketchUp Pro 2013 are used for this purpose.

The Data / Financial Analysis scenario is devoted to statistical analysis and investment forecasting based on a certain financial model. The script uses large amounts of numerical data and two applications Microsoft Excel 2013 and WinZip Pro 17.5 Pro.

Haswell's quad-core processor, Core i5-4460, does not lose to the new dual-core Core i3-6320 in only one scenario, which is related to the creation and editing of multimedia content. It turns out that the dual-core Skylake of the Core i3 series is a very advantageous solution in terms of price and performance. As for the Pentium family processors, their performance is significantly lower due to the lack of support for Hyper-Threading technology. They often manage to compete adequately with any AMD processors, including multi-core processors of the FX series, but they do not look so attractive against the background of Core i3. If the older Core i3 of the Skylake family can be compared with the younger Core i5 of the Haswell generation, then the new Pentiums are inferior even to the Core i3 of the previous generation, which makes them uniquely compromise budget proposals.

Gaming performance

As you know, the performance of platforms equipped with high-performance processors in the vast majority of modern games is determined by the power of the graphics subsystem. That is why, when testing processors, we select the most processor-dependent games, and we measure the number of frames twice. In the first pass, the tests are carried out without enabling anti-aliasing and with setting far from the highest resolutions. These settings allow you to assess how well processors perform with a gaming load in principle, which means they allow you to make guesses about how the tested computing platforms will behave in the future when faster options for graphics accelerators appear on the market. The second pass is performed with realistic settings - when choosing FullHD-resolution and the maximum level of full-screen anti-aliasing. In our opinion, such results are no less interesting, since they answer the frequently asked question about what level of gaming performance processors can provide right now - in modern conditions.

However, in this testing we put together a powerful graphics subsystem based on the flagship NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti graphics card. As a result, in some games, the frame rate showed a dependence on processor performance even in FullHD-resolution.

FullHD results with maximum quality settings

First of all, it should be noted that the performance of dual-core processors in general is still not enough to reveal the full power of the flagship graphics accelerator. Therefore, in most tests, we see the frame rate scalability depending on the power of the central processor, even though the picture quality settings in all these tests are turned to the maximum. However, it should be emphasized that there is no fundamental difference in the results of the senior dual-core Core i3 and the lower quad-core Core i5. And this clearly indicates that the dual-core Skylake can be considered as a good option for gaming systems of the mid-price category. Pentium is another matter. The gaming performance of these processors is noticeably worse than that of the Core i3, and the transition to a new generation of microarchitecture does not change anything here.

In general, if you clothe the advantage of dual-core Skylake in specific numbers, it turns out that the Core i3-6230 outperforms the Core i3-4370 by up to 10 percent; the Core i3-6100 outperforms the Core i3-4170 within the same range. But the Pentium G4400 has a noticeably lower clock speed than the Pentium G3470, so it rather lags behind the budget dual-core processor of the previous generation. Of course, it would be fairer to compare the new Pentium G4520 with the Pentium G3470, but, unfortunately, we could not get it for tests.

Results at reduced resolution

From these diagrams, you can get an idea of \u200b\u200bhow much gaming performance the new processors can demonstrate in an ideal case when the impact of the speed of the graphics subsystem is minimized. And here the advantages of the new microarchitecture are fully revealed. As you can see from the diagrams, the transfer of dual-core processors to the Skylake design gives them about a 15% increase in speed in games. And this, by the way, puts the Core i3-6320 even in a better position than the Core i5-4460.

In other words, modern dual-core processors of the Core i3 family are well suited for gaming systems - there is no doubt about that. This is especially evident from the fact that any Core i3 with a gaming load is clearly better than AMD processors. This applies to both AM3 + and FM2 + -processors.

As for the Pentium, it's not so simple with them. Their performance in comparison with Core i3 is noticeably lower, even if we are talking about new LGA 1151 products. And besides, due to the fact that, unlike their older brothers, they cannot execute four computational threads at the same time, a number of games may have problems with them. Such situations have already been observed in the past, we see them even now, for example, in GTA V, where rendering of scenes when using a Pentium is performed with errors (and that is why we do not give the Pentium result in this game).

Testing in real games is completed by the results of the popular synthetic benchmark Futuremark 3DMark.

The 3DMark results are interesting primarily because, on the one hand, it is a kind of gaming test, but not a simple one, but qualitatively optimized for multithreading. But what is surprising: even here we do not see any fundamental differences in the performance of the primordially quad-core processors and dual-core Core i3 processors, in which the absence of two additional cores is compensated by Hyper-Threading technology. In each new version of its Core microarchitecture, Intel engineers expand the execution pipeline, and today Hyper-Threading has a very significant efficiency. This is clearly seen, for example, by how much the Core i3 outperforms the Pentium. And in the end, it remains only to admit that Core i3 is a completely normal choice for a modern mid-level system, including gaming. And the new dual-core Skylakes have raised the performance bar relative to the previous Haswells, and therefore represent very worthy solutions. Even in the same 3DMark, the older dual-core Skylakes produce results comparable to those of the quad-core Haswells.

In-app tests

In Autodesk 3ds max 2016 we are testing the final rendering speed. This measures the time it takes to render at 1920x1080 using the mental ray renderer for one frame of a standard Hummer scene.

Another test of the final rendering is carried out by us using the popular free 3D graphics package Blender 2.75a. In it we measure the duration of building the final model from Blender Cycles Benchmark rev4.

We measure the performance of websites and web applications built with modern technologies using the new Microsoft Edge 20.10240.16384.0 browser. For this, a specialized test WebXPRT 2015 is used, which implements algorithms that are actually used in Internet applications in HTML5 and JavaScript.

Performance testing for graphics processing takes place in Adobe Photoshop CC 2015. The average execution time of a test script, which is a creatively reworked Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed \u200b\u200bTest, which includes typical processing of four 24-megapixel images captured by a digital camera, is measured.

At the numerous requests of amateur photographers, we conducted performance testing in the graphics program Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1. The test scenario includes post-processing and export to JPEG with a resolution of 1920x1080 and a maximum quality of two hundred 12MP RAW images taken with a Nikon D300 digital camera.

To measure the speed of processors when compressing information, we use the WinRAR 5.3 archiver, with the help of which we archive a folder with various files with a total volume of 1.7 GB with the maximum compression ratio.

To assess the speed of video transcoding into H.264 format, the x264 FHD Benchmark 1.0.1 (64bit) test is used, based on measuring the encoding time by the x264 encoder of the original video into MPEG-4 / AVC format with a resolution [email protected] and default settings. It should be noted that the results of this benchmark are of great practical importance, since the x264 encoder is at the heart of numerous popular transcoding utilities, for example, HandBrake, MeGUI, VirtualDub, etc. We periodically update the encoder used for performance measurements, and version r2538 took part in this testing, which implements support for all modern instruction sets, including AVX2.

In addition, we have added to the list of test applications a new x265 encoder designed for transcoding video into the promising H.265 / HEVC format, which is a logical continuation of H.264 and is characterized by more efficient compression algorithms. The original [email protected] Y4M video file that is transcoded to H.265 with medium profile. The release of the coder version 1.8 took part in this testing.

Looking at the results we got when testing in applications, one can only confirm the conclusions made earlier. The latest generation of Skylake Core i3 processors offer performance that is quite adequate to their cost. And what's more, it's not uncommon that there isn't a terrible performance gap between the Core i5 and the Core i3. The Core i3 line logically supports the Core i5 family from below.

Nevertheless, there are applications where the Core i5 still stands out strongly against the background of dual-core processors. This is, for example, final rendering or working with video content. For such workloads, which are more typical for workstations than for ordinary desktops, real quad-cores are still preferable.

Pentium is another matter. Whatever one may say, but these processors should be attributed to a lower class. They noticeably lag behind their older counterparts at almost any load, so their use can only be justified in budget systems that are not designed to solve any serious problems.

To what has been said, it remains only to add that the difference in the performance of dual-core processors of the Haswell and Skylake generations of the same class is about 10 percent. This ratio of results is observed in almost any application. This means that the effect of all microarchitectural improvements, the use of new memory, platform changes, etc., fits into these frameworks.

Energy consumption

When measuring performance, we again did not see any dramatic differences between Haswell and Skylake. Yes, the performance of new products has become higher, but in general, it is absolutely impossible to call the gain they received cardinal. However, from the point of view of energy characteristics, the changes can be much more noticeable. There are several prerequisites for this. First, a more modern 14-nm process technology with second-generation 3D transistors is used for the production of Skylake processors. Second, the power converter, which was previously in the processor, has been moved to the motherboard, which allows for more efficient circuits.

From the point of view of the formal characteristics of dual-core processors, all this has led to only a two-watt narrowing of the thermal package. However, as we know, Intel's TDP is a value that describes the real power consumption and heat dissipation of processors only indirectly. Moreover, if we recall the change in the consumption of processors with four cores, then the transfer to the Skylake microarchitecture gave a much more noticeable effect. Therefore, we carried out our traditional field experiment.

The new Corsair RM850i \u200b\u200bdigital power supply we used in the test system allows us to monitor the consumed and output electrical power, which we use for measurements. The following graph shows the total system consumption (without monitor) measured "after" the power supply, which is the sum of the power consumption of all components involved in the system. The efficiency of the power supply itself is not taken into account in this case. For the correct assessment of power consumption, we have activated the turbo mode and all the energy-saving technologies available in the processors.

At rest, platforms that use the latest Skylake processors seem to be definitely more economical than all other options.

Platforms based on dual-core Skylake look noticeably better under multimedia load. Despite the fact that in TDM with dual-core Haswell they differ only by 2 W, in reality we see a difference of about 15 W. Of course, DDR4 SDRAM also makes a certain contribution to the increase in efficiency, so it would be more correct to say that the LGA 1151 platform is more economical than the LGA 1150.

The following diagram shows the maximum power consumption under load created by the 64-bit version of LinX 0.6.5 utility with support for the AVX2 instruction set, which is based on the Linpack package, which has an exorbitant appetite for energy.

There is no doubt about the noticeably increased energy efficiency of Skylake dual-core processors. And by the way, now it seems quite natural that the full Skylake line with two cores has in its composition a whole separate set of energy efficient processors with the T suffix in the name with a typical heat dissipation limited to 35 watts.

conclusions

In general, of course, the conducted testing did not make any sensation. The dual-core Skylakes turned out to be exactly what they should be. With the transition to the new microarchitecture, Intel did not change the fundamental principles of building its dual-core processors, and therefore all the main characteristics of the Core i3 and Pentium in the LGA 1151 version remained the same as they were before. The clock frequencies have not changed much either. Almost all the improvements that can be seen in the dual-core Skylake are due to the introduction of a new microarchitecture and the transfer of production to a new technical process. And in the end, we got about a 10% increase in performance over its predecessors and a fairly noticeable improvement in energy efficiency.

However, this is already not bad. The fact is that, as it turned out, in most applications, the older Core i3 processors of the new generation are quite capable of competing with the younger Core i5 processors of the Haswell generation. And this means that on the basis of Core i3, you can create quite productive systems suitable for both home and office use. The number of cores can only be important in specific tasks like processing and creating high-definition multimedia content. In most common applications, including modern games, the Core i3 manifests itself as a solution with ample power. These processors' Hyper-Threading technology, coupled with relatively high clock speeds, make the Core i3 a value-for-money product.

Of course, it's worth realizing that Core i3 is not a solution for enthusiasts at all, since these processors have no loopholes for overclocking. But there is no obvious reason to treat such CPUs with disdain. This is a great compromise. And if we talk specifically about the Skylake generation Core i3 processors, they are also interesting for a number of reasons - because of the support for high-speed DDR4 SDRAM, work as part of the more advanced LGA 1151 platform, a new graphics core and good efficiency.

However, the new Pentium processors, which took part in this testing along with the Core i3, seemed to us not so interesting anymore. The baseline performance gap between Core i3 and Pentium is very serious, so the level of performance they provide is much lower. In other words, Pentium today is a representative of another world, a processor that is noticeably inferior in performance to its older brothers. Naturally, this does not negate its use in inexpensive systems, but one must bear in mind that the capabilities of this processor are much worse than those of the same Core i3. Moreover, there are examples of applications (for example, among games) that do not work on Pentium at all. The transfer of the Pentium to the Skylake microarchitecture did not change anything in this regard.

In conclusion, it should be said that in this review we did not touch on the issue of integrated graphics. But progress in this area is very noticeable. GT2-level graphics with 24 executive units are now available in all Core i3s and even in some Pentiums, which means that Skylake generation dual-core processors can turn out very good APUs, which not only significantly surpass AMD Kaveri processors in computing performance, but also catch up to him in terms of graphical performance. Practical verification of this assumption will be the topic of one of our next articles.

Active marketing promotions	✔
Warnings
WARNING	Will not work on 1151 boards designed for 8 Series CPUs (Coffee Lake).
Main characteristics
Manufacturer	INTEL
Series	Core i3 6th generation
Model	Core i3-6100 Processor find a similar processor
Processor package	OEM
Appointment	Server, Desktop PC
Description (continued)	Desktop processor
CPU bus frequency	8 GT / s (DMI3)
Type of equipment	Server processor
Description	Enhanced Intel Speedstep Technology, Intel Stable Image Platform Program (Intel SIPP), Intel Virtualization Technology (VT-x), Intel Virtualization Technology for Directed I / O (VT-d), NX / XD / Execute disable bit, AES hardware accelerated encryption , instruction sets: SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4.2, AVX extensions, AVX 2.0 extensions
Power dissipation	51 Watt
Critical temperature	65 ° C
OS support	Windows 10 (64 bit only), Windows 8.1 (64 bit only), Windows 7
CPU
Processor frequency	3.7 GHz
Processor socket	Socket LGA1151 compatible motherboards
Core	Skylake-S cPU core characteristics
Max. number of processors on the motherboard	1
L1 cache	64 Kb x2
L2 cache	256 KB x2
L3 cache	3 Mb
Hyper Threading Support	Yes
64 bit support	Yes
Number of Cores	2
Number of threads	4
Multiplication	37
Video
Video processor core	Intel HD Graphics 530
Video processor frequency	350 MHz base or up to 1.05 GHz maximum
# Of PCI-Express Lines	16
Maximum screen resolution	4096 x 2304 @ 24 Hz with HDMI monitor, 4096 x 2304 @ 60 Hz with DisplayPort monitor
Max. number of connected monitors	3
Videocard configuration
Number of shader processors	24
Memory support
Supported memory type	DDR4 ECC, DDR4, LV DDR3 ECC, LV DDR3, dual channel controller compatible memory
Officially supported memory standards	PC4-17000 (DDR4 2133 MHz), PC4-15000 (DDR4 1866 MHz), PC3-12800 (DDR3 1600 MHz), PC3-10600 (DDR3 1333 MHz)
Max RAM	64 GB
ECC support	Yes (It is possible to use memory with or without ECC support)
Configuration
Technical process	14 nm
Logistics
Package dimensions (measured in NIKS)	3.8 x 3.8 x 0.5 cm
Gross weight (measured in NIKS)	0.029 kg
Rangefinder package dimensions (measured in NIKS)	3.8 x 3.8 x 0.5 cm
Gross weight by weight (measured in NIKS)	0.029 kg

The characteristics, delivery set and appearance of this product may differ from those indicated or may be changed by the manufacturer without being reflected in the NIKS - Computer Supermarket catalog.
The information on the prices of goods and equipment indicated on the website is not an offer in the sense determined by the provisions of Art. 435 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Options, Consumables and Accessories for INTEL Core i3-6100 Processor OEM

Reviews

We tried to make the description as good as possible, so that your choice was error-free and deliberate. we may not have exploited this product, but only touched it from all sides, and after you buy it, try it in operation, your review can make this world better, if your review is really useful, then we will publish it and give it you have the opportunity to make your next purchase from us on the 2nd column.

Good office horse.

5 Timur 16-12-2016

Advantages:
Powerful enough percent for office computers.
Disadvantages:
Not cheap.

INTEL Core i3 6th Generation Core i3-6100 Processor - Cheap and fast - I advise

5 Dementyev Mikhail Alexandrovich 08-04-2016

Device Owner Review: INTEL Core i3 6th Gen Core i3-6100 Processor
Advantages:
He showed himself in games perfectly. Paired with GTX950 (Gigabyte) - all modern games fly (Daying light at max, The Witcher 3 at high, Black Desert Online at max). Buyers - keep in mind that this processor can be overclocked on Asrock motherboards. Save on power supply due to low power consumption. Depending on the assembly, 400-450W is sufficient. Most of the not newest games even run on the built-in video card (if you have the right memory). Dying light is quite comfortable to play in low-mid range. COD Advanced warfare also goes pretty well at low (only cut scenes slow down). You don't have to spend money on an expensive cooler if you don't plan to overclock the processor. Heat generation is minimal.
Disadvantages:
The ability to overlock exclusively on a certain list of motherboards (170e chipsets). The exception is Asrock - they seem to overlock on all models.

INTEL Core i3 6th Generation Core i3-6100 Processor - Price / Quality

5 Dmitriy 28-12-2015

Device Owner Review: INTEL Core i3 6th Gen Core i3-6100 Processor
Advantages:
I chose the maximum performance in this price category.
Disadvantages:
There are restrictions on the selection of RAM.

INTEL Core i3 6th Generation Core i3-6100 Processor - Best in class

5 Sharapanov Yaroslav Viktorovich 11-12-2015

Performance comparison and test results

To help you make an informed choice, the processor was tested at the NICS Computer Supermarket on 11/17/2017. The test results are clearly displayed in a diagram and two tables.

The diagram shows the test results for the selected article (highlighted in red) and 9 more products with similar prices. Percentage rates indicate approaching the highest recorded result. That is, if your choice fell on a product with an indicator of 50%, this means that there is an analogue 2 times faster (with an indicator of 100%), but, of course, at a completely different price.

The chart is followed by a table with similar indicators for 10 champion products in their category, in the form of a TOP10 rating.

From this table, it is easy to determine the place of the processor in the general "table of ranks", as well as to estimate how expensive it will be to try to improve performance. The selected product is also highlighted with a red line.

The last table is just a list of test results. From these, the percentage rating is calculated, which was used in the first two reports. By clicking on the name of the test, you can go to a pivot table with indicators of all products in the category, including those out of stock at the moment.

Only products that are currently in stock are used for comparisons.

If you decide to approach the selection of new equipment seriously and responsibly, the full Processor Comparison rating, which includes the results of testing out of stock items, will be of invaluable help.