Question In my case, are i3s worth it?

cijevisumojastvar

Commendable
Aug 20, 2018
3
0
1,510
0
So, I'm debating whether Intel's Core i3s are worth it are not. The answer I see from most tech channels are varying shades of "no". However, I do not think it's so clear cut in my case.

Where I live, the new i3-10100 is priced at about $140. The Ryzen 5 1600 is just below it at $135. The 2600 is further up at $165, and the 3600 is placed at just over $220 (which is more expensive than even the Ryzen 7 2700X, which is ~$5 cheaper). Then, the real head-scratcher for me is the older i3-9100F, which is priced similarly to most Pentiums at about $85. In fact, it and the Pentium G4560 are the same price. Though, the new Pentium G6400 sits at around $70.

In my opinion, I think the pricing is more competitive than what I see on US sites, though I am not really knowledgable on this topic, so forgive me.
So my question is, are the i3-10100 and/or the i3-9100F still viable in my case?
 
So my question is, are the i3-10100 and/or the i3-9100F still viable in my case?
Which is your case? What do you need it for?
The 9100 only has 4 cores while the 10100 has 4 cores 8 threads, it's the difference older generations had between an i5 and an i7, so that's why there is such a difference in price.
If you just want a CPU to do everyday stuff and a bit of gaming anything in that general price range will do just as well.
It's only with very specific stuff that you will see one being faster than the other.

I guess most people say it's not worth it because the price difference to the 9400f/3600 with 6cores/12threads is so small that it makes more sense to go with that.
 

cijevisumojastvar

Commendable
Aug 20, 2018
3
0
1,510
0
Which is your case? What do you need it for?
The 9100 only has 4 cores while the 10100 has 4 cores 8 threads, it's the difference older generations had between an i5 and an i7, so that's why there is such a difference in price.
If you just want a CPU to do everyday stuff and a bit of gaming anything in that general price range will do just as well.
It's only with very specific stuff that you will see one being faster than the other.

I guess most people say it's not worth it because the price difference to the 9400f/3600 with 6cores/12threads is so small that it makes more sense to go with that.
The system I have in mind is an all-rounder/jack-of-all-trades. Capable of more or less everything from casual web browsing to gaming (1080p mainly) to even light productive workloads like image and simple video editing.
 
Gaming and video editing are very cpu intensive workloads.
I wouldn't even consider pentium or i3.

Although 10th gen i3 is similar to 7th gen i7. So ...
.. nah.

Define your budget and we'll probably cook parts list for your new pc.
 

madmatt30

Titan
Ambassador
Intel have confused things immensely until you search properly and look at cpu specs.

As stated some current i3's are actually the equivalent of 2 generation old i7's but with better ipc.

Intel totally changed their traditional conventional naming of 2 core i3, 4 core i5, and 4c/8t i7 cpu's.

It may always have been a plan, it may have been somewhat forced by amd's release of ryzen.

At that price the gen 1 ryzen 1600 is still a good buy imo even though its old now.
The only benefit of the 10100 is the fact it has integrated graphics.
 
Last edited:

boju

Titan
Ambassador
Just because they kept it up for a few generations doesn't make it traditional.
The first i5 gen were both 2 core and 4 core and the first i7 gen was 2 core 4 core and 6 core.
And they had single core celerons for quite a few gens.
True i5 started with dual core models but the i7 (920) was a quad, there are no two core i7's.
 
You could also look at the ryzen 3 3100 and 3300x. I think those are also quads with hyperthreading, which should give you similar performance to say the i7 7700k, but still opens up the door for you to grab a ryzen 7 or ryzen 9 later. So maybe one of those and a decent b550 board that will allow overclocking in case you tinker with that later.
 
I3 is not what it used to be.
I recently built a pc for my son using the i3-10100 processor.
Let me tell you it is quick.
Also I used a 970 evo plus m.2 ssd.
He will use it for normal desktop work.
I also installed a copy of civ 4 on it and even using the integrated HD630 graphics, it played decently.
It runs a 4k monitor @60hz using displayport on integrated graphics.
I am much impressed.
If you plan on some gaming, then you will want a discrete graphics card.
One rule for a balanced gamer is to budget 2x the cost of the processor for the graphics card.
Something like a GTX1660ti would be about right.
 
One tweak to above. Not that your response is bad, but I would consider looking hard at the 1660 super over the 1660ti. Not that the ti is a bad card, but the super, at least when I bought mine a while back, was pretty close in performance to the 1660ti, but was quite a bit less in cost.
 

ragnarok0274

Great
Sep 12, 2020
141
8
95
2
I3 is not what it used to be.
I recently built a pc for my son using the i3-10100 processor.
Let me tell you it is quick.
Also I used a 970 evo plus m.2 ssd.
He will use it for normal desktop work.
I also installed a copy of civ 4 on it and even using the integrated HD630 graphics, it played decently.
It runs a 4k monitor @60hz using displayport on integrated graphics.
I am much impressed.
If you plan on some gaming, then you will want a discrete graphics card.
One rule for a balanced gamer is to budget 2x the cost of the processor for the graphics card.
Something like a GTX1660ti would be about right.
Civ 6 is better (except for no road spam)
And, unless you hate AMD,
Go AMD with a R3 or R5 2nd gen.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY