Intel Core i3-6100 Review

Cons

• Integrated graphics performance lags AMD rivals.
• Locked, preventing overclocking.

Intel has significantly distanced itself from its competitor AMD in the realm of high-performance CPUs. The current flagship of Intel’s 6th Generation Core lineup, the Core i7-6700K processor, surpasses AMD’s older FX series, which includes the FX-9590 and FX-8370 models. In reality, the FX processors are more comparable to Intel’s midrange Core i5-6600K.

However, at the opposite end of the spectrum, where value is prioritized over sheer performance, the situation becomes somewhat more intricate—particularly for gaming enthusiasts. This complexity arises primarily from the fact that contemporary gaming consoles are equipped with multiple addressable cores, leading to an increasing number of AAA game titles that either favor or, in some instances, necessitate the use of four cores (or four addressable threads) for optimal operation. Intel’s most affordable current-generation processors, such as the Pentium G4400, are limited to just two cores and do not feature the company’s Hyper-Threading technology, which enables each core to manage two processing threads. Consequently, these processors are not ideal for gamers, as it is anticipated that more prominent titles will demand more than two threads in the future.

AMD offers a range of competitively priced processors that feature four cores and integrated graphics, which surpass the performance of the HD 530 graphics typically found in Intel’s mainstream desktop CPUs. Among these AMD processors, referred to as “APUs,” are the recently released AMD A10-7860K priced and the flagship A10-7890K, which retails for approximately. Reviews for both processors are forthcoming, and they have been included in our benchmarks on the following page. For gamers planning to utilize a dedicated graphics card, the AMD Athlon X4 880K stands out due to its four cores, high clock speed, and a price point below. However, it is important to note that this chip does not feature integrated graphics, which ultimately allows users to avoid paying for unnecessary components.

Given the numerous options available from AMD, we were eager to evaluate how Intel’s latest entry-level gaming processor compared. Consequently, we requested the Core i3-6100 from the company for our testing purposes. This processor boasts an impressive clock speed of 3.7GHz, featuring two cores and Hyper-Threading, making it well-equipped to handle any contemporary game. Additionally, its HD 530 graphics are identical to those found in the more expensive “Skylake” Core i5 and i7 models. However, the Core i3-6100 does not include the variable clock-speed Turbo Boost feature present in those higher-end chips, nor is it unlocked for overclocking, meaning it will operate solely at the 3.7GHz frequency.

The Core i3-6100 is a commendable and unexpectedly robust processor suitable for both general computing tasks and serious gaming, assuming the use of a dedicated graphics card. However, budget-conscious builders who also require a motherboard might consider choosing an AMD processor instead. The Athlon X4 880K is approximately expensive than the Core i3-6100, while the more economical Athlon X4 860K can be purchased for as little as. For gamers seeking optimal frame rates, it would be more advantageous to allocate that towards a graphics card rather than investing in a new CPU.

Characteristics and Fundamentals of Skylake

In our earlier reviews, we have thoroughly examined the advancements in features associated with Intel’s well-known “Skylake” platform, including the LGA 1151 socket of the Core i3-6100 and the different chipsets within the 100-family, particularly the high-end Z170. For those who wish to familiarize themselves with this information or require a brief overview, we highly recommend visiting the second page of our review on the Intel Core i7-6700K.

Instead of providing an exhaustive list of the specifications for the Core i3-6100 and its comparison with more advanced Intel Core models, I present a chart directly from Intel that encapsulates the key details of the series.

The Core i3-6100 is positioned at the lower end of Intel’s 6th-Generation “Core” processor lineup. There are two other Core i3 models with marginally higher clock speeds. However, the Core i3-6100 is often regarded as the most cost-effective option, featuring a clock speed of 3.7GHz and integrated HD 530 graphics that are only slightly underclocked (by 100MHz) compared to its more expensive alternatives.

An additional significant aspect highlighted in the chart above is that Intel’s Core i3 processors are rated at 47 watts, in contrast to AMD’s premium APUs (including the Athlon X4 880K), which are rated at 95 watts. Although TDP (thermal design power), which measures heat output, does not directly correlate to precise power consumption figures, it is evident that Intel’s CPUs maintain a substantial advantage in terms of performance per watt. As will be demonstrated, the Core i3 chip typically surpasses AMD’s rival processors in most CPU-centric tasks. If electricity costs are high in your area, this may provide sufficient justification to choose an Intel chip over an AMD alternative; however, it is important to note that incorporating a high-end graphics card into your system will significantly increase power consumption during gaming, exceeding that of any individual processor.

It is important to note that, similar to the Core i7-6700K, this processor necessitates a new motherboard featuring an LGA 1151 socket. It cannot be installed in an existing motherboard that utilizes the Z97 or H97 chipsets. Additionally, it is unlikely that older RAM can be reused, as the majority of new Intel-based motherboards require DDR4 memory. We have been quite impressed with the innovative features introduced in many of the new LGA 1151-compatible Z170 motherboards. These enhancements primarily focus on exceptionally fast storage options through PCI Express x4 M.2 SSD slots and USB 3.1 Gen 2 ports, which effectively double the theoretical bandwidth compared to USB 3.0. For further information regarding these new features and more, we recommend reviewing our analysis of the MSI Z170A Gaming M5, an affordable motherboard priced that showcases some of the finest capabilities of the latest Z170 boards.

However, as highlighted in our analysis of the Athlon X4 880K, several recent AMD Socket FM2+-based motherboards provide numerous features, including USB 3.1 and M.2 storage slots. Additionally, AMD motherboards tend to be more cost-effective compared to their Intel counterparts. This aspect further supports AMD’s appeal for those constructing a system from the ground up, particularly when budget considerations are paramount.

In light of this, if you intend to construct a high-performance PC featuring more than two graphics cards and several M.2 drives, the Intel Z170 chipset is undoubtedly superior. It provides greater bandwidth through PCI Express 3.0 lanes compared to the older AMD FM2+ A88X chipset. Therefore, if your upcoming build includes numerous high-end components, we strongly recommend opting for Intel.

Evaluation and Summary

Prior to delving into the specifics of the benchmark, it is essential to highlight that, due to the recent introduction of new Intel and AMD processors, we have opted to conduct our CPU testing on Windows 10. The processors evaluated include the Intel Core i3-6100, Athlon X4 880K, AMD A10-7870K, AMD A10-7890K, and AMD A10-7860K, all tested on the Windows 10 platform. In contrast, the older models, namely the AMD FX-8370 and Intel Core i5-6600K, were assessed using Windows 8.1. Consequently, the performance metrics of the Core i5 and AMD FX processors may not be directly comparable to the newer models. However, it is important to note that these older CPUs are significantly more expensive and powerful, and their inclusion serves primarily to offer a comprehensive reference rather than to position them as direct competitors.

Although it is not feasible to guarantee that all aspects are directly comparable between Intel and AMD platforms, we conducted tests on all these processors utilizing a SATA-based SSD as the boot drive and 16GB of RAM. To optimize the performance of the integrated graphics in these processors, we evaluated the Core i3 with DDR4 Corsair RAM operating at its maximum rated speed of 2,800MHz, while the AMD systems were assessed with AMD-branded DDR3 RAM functioning at its peak rated speed of 2,100MHz. The speed of the RAM is particularly significant for integrated graphics, as it enhances the chip’s ability to process and render pixels effectively.

Graphics Tests

In recent times, Intel’s integrated graphics have significantly improved, allowing numerous games to be played on desktop CPUs at lower resolutions and settings. However, AMD has typically maintained a competitive advantage in gaming performance with its on-chip graphics when evaluating components within the same price range. With the introduction of a new series of AMD products, we were keen to assess the performance of the Core i3-6100 and its HD 530 graphics, which are slightly downclocked compared to the higher-end Core i5 and i7 models featuring the same integrated graphics processor.

It is important to observe that the charts feature a reduced number of comparison chips, as AMD’s Athlon X4 880K and FX-8370 do not include integrated graphics. Consequently, a dedicated graphics card is necessary for these processors. In contrast, the Core i3-6100 does not impose this requirement. However, for an optimal gaming experience at resolutions exceeding approximately 1,366×768 and with low-to-medium settings, the use of a dedicated graphics card is advisable.

Sleeping Dogs

Subsequently, we tested the open-world action game Sleeping Dogs. Although this title was released in 2012, it remains sufficiently demanding at high settings and resolutions to challenge even mid-range gaming PCs. Therefore, we opted for the Medium detail setting.

 

The Core i3-6100 demonstrated consistent performance at a resolution of 1,366×768. However, when the resolution was increased to 1,920×1,080, only the AMD APUs and the Core i5 processor priced above maintained frame rates exceeding 30fps, which is considered the minimum threshold for smooth gameplay. It is important to note that this assessment was conducted using Medium settings. To enhance visual quality further, a dedicated graphics card is essential.

Conclusion

For versatile computing that accommodates light gaming, the Core i3-6100 stands out as an exceptional value within Intel’s 6th-Generation “Skylake” series. Unless you are engaged in demanding tasks such as video rendering that utilize all available cores, the performance of the Core i3-6100 will typically be comparable to that of the Core i5-6600K. Notably, the latter operates at a lower base frequency of 3.5GHz and is priced significantly higher, exceeding more than the Core i3, which retails at approximately.

If you are constructing a PC with a focus on gaming and plan to include a dedicated graphics card, it may be advantageous to consider the AMD option by selecting the Athlon X4 880K. While it may not match the speed of the Core i3, it is sufficiently powerful to manage gaming demands, and it offers excellent overclocking potential (we achieved 4.5GHz using the updated stock cooler). At the time of writing, the Athlon processor was approximately expensive than the Core i3. Additionally, if you are assembling a system from the ground up, you can find competent AMD-based motherboards at lower prices compared to many current-generation Intel boards. We observed FM2+ motherboards available for as little as, with enhanced models such as Asrock’s A88M A-G/3.1 (featuring USB 3.1 and an M.2 connector).

If your primary objective is gaming and you are beginning from the ground up, selecting an AMD-based configuration can lead to substantial savings compared to investing in a Core i3. This saved capital can be redirected towards acquiring a more robust graphics card. Conversely, if you anticipate upgrading your system in the future, the additional cost of the Core i3 may be justified due to the longevity of its platform. The LGA 1151 socket is relatively recent, whereas the AMD Socket FM2+, which accommodates the Athlon X4 processors, is nearing its end of life, as AMD plans to transition to a universal AM4 socket later in 2016. Therefore, while Athlon processors currently offer excellent budget options, the platform supporting the Core i3-6100 is likely to remain relevant for a longer duration.