News Intel 300 CPU benchmarks unsurprisingly show dual-core CPUs struggling in 2024

[Admin]

Although Intel's branding for its dual-core CPUs has changed, benchmarks for the 300 CPU show that the performance is still the same.

Intel 300 CPU benchmarks unsurprisingly show dual-core CPUs struggling in 2024 : Read more

 

[Amdlova]

14100 110w tdp? Whatttttt
On cyberpunk the 13100 barely hits 15w cpu usage something is wrong on that news

 

[spongiemaster]

14100 110w tdp? Whatttttt
On cyberpunk the 13100 barely hits 15w cpu usage something is wrong on that news

Base TDP is 60W, which still seems high. Max Turbo is 110W, which doesn't sound possible with a dual core CPU. Even the 13900K pulls "only" about 45W per core at max boost which is more than a GHz higher. I think Intel got their own specs wrong. 60W should probably be the max turbo power draw. 30W per core is probably about right for such a lowly binned CPU.

 

[TJ Hooker]

14100 110w tdp? Whatttttt
On cyberpunk the 13100 barely hits 15w cpu usage something is wrong on that news

That's the max turbo power specified by Intel for that part.
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...processor-14100-12m-cache-up-to-4-70-ghz.html

They probably should have listed the base power as well though, 60W, which is a better comparison against the other two chips (which only have a base power value as they don't support turbo).

Edit: Looks like the actual power measured for the i3 in Cyberpunk 2077 was 65W.

 

[TJ Hooker]

Base TDP is 60W, which still seems high. Max Turbo is 110W, which doesn't sound possible with a dual core CPU.

The i3 is a quad core.

 

[spongiemaster]

The i3 is a quad core.

Derp, you're right. Article title was talking about dual core CPU's. Confused myself.

 

[thestryker]

Unsurprising, but unfortunate that these seem to just be higher binned rebrands. Would be interesting to see how they'd fare when power limited against the N300/305. These could make for a pretty good microserver box.

 

[Neilbob]

I think it's a minor miracle Intel even bothered to allow them the 2 extra threads. Not that long ago they were still flogging 2C2T for low-end trash (or maybe they still are). But for crying out loud, surely they can't have enough imperfect dies to still warrant the 2 cores.

Insufficient even for the majority of barrel-scraping OEM destined-to-be e-waste.

 

[jlake3]

...and even achieved 60 FPS or more in three of the four games PC Watch tested

and, surprisingly, could sustain 60 FPS in every game but Cyberpunk 2077, where it was just a little short at 56 FPS. The 300 could even play the Resident Evil 4 remake at well over 60 FPS, though its two cores were pegged at 100% the entire time.

Couldn't pull out the settings used for us? Or the test setup? Or even the names of all the games?

Most relevant info would be that both CPUs were paired with a RTX 4080 and DDR5-5600 that was running at 4800 for CPUs that didn't support the higher speed.

CP2077 was 1080p low, FSR off.
Resident Evil I saw a live demo, but no charts or settings.

Seems Resident Evil doesn't count towards the "four games tested", as there were three additional sets of charts in addition to CP2077: Call of Duty 1080p minimum 100% resolution scaling, F1 '23 1080p ultra low 16xAA+TAA+FidelityFX, and Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord, 1080p very low battle size 1000.

 

[cyrusfox]

Would a N97/N100 beat this? Looks like no... at least for the N100(60.5/195 cinebench 2024 score sing/multi)

I would prefer a N97 though (stronger GPU than Intel 300) with enough TDP to use it.

Would much rather they release a socketable e-core only variant starting at 4 cores rather than 2 P cores here but there must be a market for it. The numbers are stacking up on themselves at the low end, creating needless confusion, they should have held on to Pentium/Celeron names, or might as well give them some differentiation besides Nxxx and xxx.

 

[thestryker]

Would a N97/N100 beat this? Looks like no... at least for the N100(60.5/195 cinebench 2024 score sing/multi)

I would prefer a N97 though (stronger GPU than Intel 300) with enough TDP to use it.

Would much rather they release a socketable e-core only variant starting at 4 cores rather than 2 P cores here but there must be a market for it. The numbers are stacking up on themselves at the low end, creating needless confusion, they should have held on to Pentium/Celeron names, or might as well give them some differentiation besides Nxxx and xxx.

This is faster than anything N series single threaded and should only be beaten by the 8 core models in multi. These also have much more connectivity than the N series so there are clear advantages. Basically the only things the N series is better at is power usage and IGP though they only have single channel bandwidth to feed it.