Intel i3-10100 vs Ryzen 3 3300X & 3100 - Budget CPU Comparison!

**Comparing the Intel i3-10100 and AMD Ryzen 3 Processors**

In our latest comparison, we put the Intel i3-10100 against the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X processors to see which one comes out on top in various tasks and games. We began by testing each processor in a series of benchmarking tests, including Cinebench R20, Geekbench 5, and Prime95, to determine their single core and multicore performance.

**Benchmarking Results**

The results showed that the Ryzen 3 processors were significantly faster than the Intel i3-10100 in most benchmarks. The Ryzen 3 3100 was the fastest in Cinebench R20, while the Ryzen 3 3300X was slightly slower but still ahead of the i3. In Geekbench 5, the 3100 took the lead, followed closely by the 3300X and then the i3. Prime95 showed similar results, with the 3300X taking the top spot.

**Gaming Performance**

When it comes to gaming performance, the results were more nuanced. At 1080p resolution, the Ryzen 3 processors were slightly faster than the Intel i3-10100, but at 1440p resolution, the gap narrowed significantly. The Ryzen 3 3300X was actually slower than the i3-10100 by 0.2% in some games, although overall the differences were relatively small.

**Esports Titles**

However, certain esports titles like Far Cry and COD showed a stronger preference for Intel's processors. In these games, the i3 was able to maintain its performance advantage over the Ryzen 3 3300X. On the other hand, games that favored AMD like COD seemed to prefer the 3300X.

**Cost Considerations**

When we consider the costs involved, the Intel i3-10100 is currently available for around $122 USD, which is the lowest price point among our three options. However, if we factor in the cost of a decent B450 motherboard that can support faster memory speeds with XMP profiles, the value proposition shifts. The Ryzen 3 3300X is actually more affordable and offers better multicore performance.

**Future Upgradability**

Both platforms should have some options for future upgradability. AMD recently confirmed that B450 and X470 boards will have support for Zen3, although it will depend on motherboard vendors to decide which boards to provide this update for. Intel 10th gen requires new motherboards, but it's assumed that these will also support 11th gen processors.

**Overclocking and PCIe Support**

One key advantage of the Ryzen options is their ability to be overclocked, while the i3 cannot. Additionally, AMD offers faster PCIe 4.0 support, although Intel's 10th gen uses PCIe 3.0.

**Conclusion**

Based on our testing, we would recommend the Ryzen 3 3300X if it's available without being overpriced. However, if the price is a concern, the Intel i3-10100 remains a viable option due to its lower cost. Ultimately, the choice between these processors depends on individual needs and priorities.

**The Verdict**

So which CPU would we pick? Let us know in the comments below! Are you new to our channel or returning from a longer absence? Either way, get subscribed for all our upcoming 10th gen processor comparisons, where we'll put each model through its paces to determine which one reigns supreme.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enIntel has launched their i3-10100 processor,but how does it stack up against AMD’s recentlylaunched Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X processorsat similar price points?Let’s see what the differences are in gamesand applications and see which is worth itfor the money.All three processors have 4 cores and 8 threadswith a 65 watt TDP, granted those aren’treally directly comparable.Both Ryzen CPUs have more than double thecache of the Intel option, and the base clockof the i3 matches the 3100, while the boostclock of the i3 matches the 3300X.Both the 3100 and 3300X have a single CCD,however the 3300X has 4 cores within the sameCCX while the 3100 has 2 cores per CCX.Basically this means core-to-core latencyis higher in the 3100 and we’re expectingit to be slower.I’m comparing these processors because theprice for the Ryzen 3 3100 is meant to be$100 USD, the Ryzen 3 3300X is meant to be$120 USD, and the Intel i3-10100 is listedas $122 in quantities of 1000, so it’llprobably be more like $130 to $140 USD ata guess.Unfortunately US pricing isn’t availableat the time of recording as it’s still notfor sale yet in the US, but you can referto updated pricing linked in the descriptiononce it’s available.Regardless, the prices of these parts shouldin theory be quite close to make for an interestingcomparison.All processors were tested in the same system,however I’ve had to change motherboardsbetween Intel and AMD platforms.For the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X, I’vetested with the ASRock X570 Taichi and forthe Intel i3-10100 I’ve used the MSI Z490ACE motherboard.The rest of the components were otherwisethe same, I’ve tested with 16gb of DDR4-3200memory running in dual channel at CL14 andwith an Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti to reduce GPU bottlenecks.Although both chips come with a stock cooler,I haven’t tested with that.I’ve used the same Fractal S36 AIO withNoctua NT-H1 paste for all CPUs so we canget an apples to apples temperature comparison.Testing was completed with the latest versionof Windows and Nvidia drivers along with allBIOS updates available installed.With that in mind we’ll first check outthe differences in various applications, aswell as power draw and thermals, followedby gaming tests at 1080p and 1440p resolutionsafterwards, then finish up by comparing someperformance per dollar metrics.Starting with Cinebench R20, I’ve got theIntel i3-10100 processor down the bottom andhighlighted in blue, the Ryzen 3 3100 in themiddle, and the 3300X up the top.In this test, the i3 was just one point aheadof the 3100 in terms of single core performance,however the 3100 had a 7% higher multicorescore.The 3300X on the other hand had a 12% highersingle core score and a 19% gain in multicoreperformance over the i3.I’ve also tested the older Cinebench R15as a lot of people still use it, and the resultswere similar, with the i3 ahead of the 3100in single core performance, but 3300X scoring10% higher than the i3 in single core, whileboth Ryzen processors were ahead of the i3in multicore.I’ve tested the Blender BMW and Classroombenchmarks, and as a core heavy workload,the Ryzen processors were also completingthese tasks faster.The 3100 was only 1.5% faster in the BMW test,while the 3300X had a much larger 15% lead.In the longer classroom test, the 3100 wasslightly faster at 4%, while the 3300X wasnow 17% faster than the i3.Handbrake was used to convert one of my 4Klaptop review videos to 1080p with the HQ1080p30 preset, and as another program thatleverages additional threads, the i3-10100was the slowest out of the three, while thedifference was much smaller between the 3100and 3300X.Adobe Premiere was used to export one of mylaptop review videos at 4K, and I’ve usedVBR 2 pass so all were running for over anhour.Again the 10100 was the slowest of the bunch,the 3100 completed the task 8% faster whilethe 3300X was 18.5% faster than the i3.Premiere was also tested using the Puget systemsbenchmark tool, as another test that favoursmulticore performance, the 3100 was scoring5.5% higher than the i3, while the 3300X wasscoring 14% higher than the i3.I’ve also tested the warp stabilizer effectin Adobe Premiere which is a less threadedworkload and is used to smooth out a videoclip.I thought the better single core performancewith the i3 would help it out here, but thatwas not the case as it was taking the longestto complete the task.I’ve used the Puget Systems Photoshop benchmark,and as a test that is able to take advantageof single core performance, the i3-10100 wasable to reach a 4% higher score than the 3100.The i3 couldn’t beat the 3300X though, whichwas scoring 12% higher.7-Zip was used to test compression and decompressionspeeds, a workload that Ryzen generally beatsIntel in from my prior testing, and that wasagain the case here where both the 3100 and3300x were 12 to 30% faster than the i3 dependingon the specific test.AES encryption and decryption is another workloadthat Ryzen generally seems to win at whencompared to Intel.In the VeraCrypt benchmark the 3100 was around14% faster than the i3, while the 3300X was25% faster.The V-Ray benchmark uses the CPU to renderout a scene, and as another multicore test,the i3 was behind the Ryzen processors, althoughthe 3100 was only scoring 2% ahead of thei3, one of the smallest margins out of alltests, though the 3300X had a larger 20% higherscore.The Corona benchmark also uses the processorto render out a scene, and although this isanother multicore test, the i3 was completingthe task 10 seconds faster than the 3100,though the 3300X was 21 seconds faster thanthe i3.I’ve used the Hardware Unboxed MicrosoftExcel test, and the i3-10100 was taking thelongest to complete this large number crunchworkload.GeekBench 5 single core scores saw the i3beat the 3100 as we’ve seen in a numberof other tests, however the multicore scorewas 4% higher on the 3100.These are the differences between the Ryzen3 3100 and Intel i3-10100 in all of theseapplications tested.As we can see, results can really vary basedon the specific workload, however the 3100was winning in most cases.The i3 is ahead in the single core tests,and just one of the multicore tests.This is how the 3300X stacks up against thei3-10100.The 3300X was ahead in all cases here, evensingle core performance was at least 10% fasterthan the i3 processor, but again results canvary significantly between specific tests.I think this is a pretty good result consideringthe 3300X should be cheaper than the i3.Just quickly here’s how much faster the3300X was when compared to the 3100 in thesesame tests.When we look at the total system power drawfrom the wall the i3-10100 was actually usingthe least amount in the blender test, thoughit was also performing the slowest in blenderso that seems reasonable.As the i3 is using less power, it’s notsurprising that it was also cooler than therest, granted it was basically the same asthe 3100, the 3300X was much warmer comparatively,but expect different results with the stockcoolers.I’ve used the same Fractal S36 AIO herefor comparable results.Although not exactly directly comparable,the i3 was running at higher clock speedsthan the 3100 in this same blender workload.Given the 3100 was faster in this test, Ithink this perhaps illustrates the performanceper clock of Ryzen 3000, as the i3 completesthe task slower while being clocked higher,though other differences like cache may becoming into effect.I’ve only tested the Ryzen processors withthe auto OC option in the Ryzen master software,which made minimal difference.With some manual tuning though it is possibleto get more gains, while the i3 does not supportoverclocking.Let’s get into the gaming results next,I’ve tested 15 games at both 1080p and 1440presolutions.As a reminder I’m using the RTX 2080 Tito reduce GPU bottlenecks, the goal of thesenumbers is not to show you what sort of framerates to expect from these processors withmore reasonable GPUs, it’s to compare theprocessors against each other.Battlefield V was tested running through thesame section of the game in campaign mode.I’ve got the 1080p results down the bottom,the 1440p results above, and again I’vehighlighted the i3 in blue.In this test the i3 was ahead of the 3300Xat either resolution in 1% lows, also in averageFPS at 1440p, though slightly behind at 1080pin the averages, but either way the two werequite close, while the cheaper 3100 is furtherbehind.Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested withthe games benchmark tool, and the resultshere were kind of similar with the 3300x aheadin average FPS at 1080p, but then a littlefurther behind once we step up to 1440p, thoughthe 1% low at 1440p on the 3300X dropped backa fair bit giving an edge to the i3.Call of Duty modern warfare was tested incampaign mode, and is a game that I’ve recentlyfound to favour the Ryzen processors, especiallyin terms of 1% low performance as I was noticingoccasional stuttering while performing thistest on the i3.At 1080p even the cheaper 3100 is beatingthe i3 in both 1% low and average FPS.Borderlands 3 was tested using the games builtin benchmark.The average frame rates between the 3300Xand 10100 were very close together at eitherresolution, though the 3300X had a subtlelead in the 1% low, granted this is withinthe margin of error range.Control was tested by performing the sametest pass through the game in all instances,and there was basically no significant differencebetween the three processors here at eitherresolution, at least with the high graphicalsetting preset I’m testing with.Red Dead Redemption 2 was tested using thegames benchmark tool, and it was a win forthe i3 at both resolutions, however it’sa small lead, just 2% faster at 1080p andalmost 4% faster at 1440p.Shadow of the Tomb Raider was also testedwith the games benchmark tool, so no 1% lowdata here unfortunately.This time the 3300X was slightly ahead, thoughonly by 2-3 FPS on average.Rainbow Six Siege was tested using the builtin benchmark with Vulkan.At 1080p the 3300X and 10100 are very closetogether, a couple FPS higher in the 1% lowon the Ryzen chip, while the Intel chip wasa couple FPS higher in the averages.At 1440p though, the two Ryzen options areabout the same, while the i3 has a noteworthyimprovement in the 1% low.CS:GO was tested using the Ulletical FPS benchmark,and the 3300X was performing best in thistest.The i3 was closer to the 3100 for the mostpart as the 3300X had an 18% higher averageFPS at 1080p over the i3, lowering to a 9%higher frame rate at 1440p.Dota 2 was tested playing in the middle laneand was again performing a fair bit betteron the 3300X both in terms of 1% low and averageFPS.The i3-10100 was closer to the 3100 in thistest, however it did still maintain a smalllead in all aspects.Overwatch was tested in the practice range,and while this runs better than actual gameplay,it more easily allows me to perform the exactsame test run, which is ideal for a comparisonlike this.There wasn’t much difference regardlessof processor, at least not one you’re likelyto notice while actually playing the game.The Division 2 was tested using the gamesbenchmark tool, and once more the 3300X and10100 were quite close together, just a coupleof FPS either way at both resolutions foraverage and 1% low performance.The Witcher 3 was tested running through thesame section of the game, and again the 3300Xand 10100 were quite close together.The i3 is just 1-2 FPS faster in the averageswith a little higher in the 1% lows, particularlyat 1080p where we’re presumably a bit lessGPU heavy.Ghost Recon Breakpoint was tested with thegames built in benchmark, and yet again the3300X and i3-10100 were very close together,just a few FPS apart worst case and probablynot really a difference you’d notice.The i3 was 1 FPS higher at 1080p, and 3 higherat 1440p, so yeah nothing major.Far Cry New Dawn was also tested with thegames built in benchmark, this time we’vegot a clear win for the Intel i3-10100, asis typically the case in this game.Ryzen processors just can’t seem to matchIntel in this test, and as a result at 1080pthe i3 is almost 10% faster in average framerate, and 9% higher at 1440p.On average out of these 15 games tested, theIntel i3-10100 was 9% faster in average FPSwhen compared against the cheaper Ryzen 33100, basically only call of duty modern warfarewas performing better on the 3100 out of theselection of games tested.1% low is perhaps more important when it comesto processor comparisons, though the i3 hada similar lead here, 10% faster on averagewhen compared to the Ryzen 3 3100.If we look at the 1440p results, the i3’slead over the 3100 lowers a little to under6% higher on average, as the processor startsto matter less and less as we increase theresolution.Now let’s compare the i3 against the 3300X,as this is where things get interesting.At 1080p, on average in these same 15 gamesthe 10100 was 2.5% slower than the 3300X onaverage.Basically Far Cry New Dawn is the main gameholding up the i3’s score, without it theother titles that get an improvement on thei3 are seeing less than a two percent boost.Of particular interest to me was that bothDota2 and CS:GO were performing significantlybetter on the 3300X, so budget conscious esportsplayers may want to take note.When we look at the differences in 1% lowperformance, the i3 is still a similar amountslower than the 3300X, that large call ofduty result is definitely giving the 3300Xan edge here, but even looking at the restof the games the results go one way or theother by similar amounts.Once we step up to 1440p the i3 is now just0.2% slower, so on average they’re basicallyeven, however those esports titles were stillhelping out the 3300X.Based on these results, processor selectionbetween the Ryzen 3 3300X and Intel i3-10100hardly seems to matter in games on average.There are of course some games that heavilyfavour Intel like Far Cry, while others likeCOD seem to prefer the 3300X, so althoughresults can vary a fair bit for specific games,once we take the averages from 15 games they’requite close.When we take the costs into consideration,the 3100 is the best in terms of pure value,though as we just saw it was performing theworst out of these options.What I think is the most interesting is thatnot only is the 3300X beating the i3 in games,it’s doing so at a lower dollar per framevalue.If we measure based on 1% low performanceinstead of averages, the 3300X is still ahead,granted much closer together at 1440p thanat 1080p.I also need to note the $122 USD price ofthe i3 here is absolute best case and likelynot going to happen, as mentioned earlierI just don’t have pricing for it as it’sstill not for sale, but I’d expect it tobe closer to the $130 to $140 price pointwhich would make the value even worse.At the same time though, the 3300X is currentlydifficult to buy, and although Newegg stillhas it listed at $120 USD, it’s out of stockand third party sellers are trying to makea profit by asking for crazy prices, so wemight have to wait a while for things to settle.Again you can refer to updated prices in thedescription once available.Don’t forget that outside of gaming the3300X was beating the i3-10100 by even largermargins, so that combined with the slightwin in gaming for an in theory cheaper priceis why I’m giving it the win.The i3 easily beat the cheaper 3100 in gamingthough, and in our apps the i3 was also betterin terms of single core performance, howeverif you just need multicore performance forsay rendering, it’s doing better than thei3 there for less money.Although I’m trying to compare apples toapples here, fact is if you want faster memorywith the i3 like I’ve tested with here,you’re going to have to spend more for aZ490 motherboard too whereas even good valueB450 boards will allow you to use faster memorywith XMP profiles with the 3300X, so thatwould further make the i3-10100 worse offin terms of total cost.In terms of future upgradability, both platformsshould have some options.AMD recently confirmed that B450 and X470boards will have support for Zen3, althoughit will depend on motherboard vendors to decidewhich boards to provide this update for.Even if you don’t go Zen3, with a mid rangeB450 board it’s still possible to upgradeall the way up to the 16 core 3950X in future.Intel 10th gen requires new motherboards,and while it’s assumed that these will alsosupport 11th gen, there isn’t currentlysolid confirmation on this, but if your motherboardis decent you could at least go up to the10900K in future.As already mentioned, the i3 cannot be overclockedwhile the Ryzen options can be, so it’spossible to get some more performance theretoo.Additionally, Ryzen offers faster PCIe 4.0support, while Intel 10th gen uses PCIe 3.0.At the end of the day, I think we as consumersare winning here.AMD’s competitive processors are clearlyone of the main reasons that Intel has broughtback hyperthreading with their 10th generationprocessors, as it was missing from the 9thgen in all but the top end i9 series.Let me know if you want to see this new 10100compared with the 9100 in a future video tosee the difference hyperthreading gets us.Based on all of this information, out of thethree I’d go for the 3300X if it’s availablewithout being over priced, but let me knowwhich CPU you’d pick and why down in thecomments, Intel’s i3-10100 or AMD’s Ryzen3 3100 or 3300X?And if you’re new to the channel then getsubscribed for all my upcoming 10th gen processorcomparisons.\n"