Thursday, September 29th 2022

Intel Core i3 N300 is a Core Processor with Just E-cores That Somehow Isn't an Atom or Pentium Silver

The upcoming Intel Core i3-N300 is an upcoming entry-level mobile processor that only has "Gracemont" E-cores, no P-cores, and yet somehow isn't branded under Atom or Pentium Silver. This isn't just because Intel retired the entry-level brands in favor of a generic "Intel Inside" brand to be used on entry-level notebooks; but very likely because of the way these chips are architected.

The i3-N300 and i3-N305 were spotted in separate Geekbench submissions discovered by Benchleaks. The chip is identified as having 8 cores and 8 logical processors (threads), but its cache is identified as being 4x 64 KB L1I, with 4x 32 KB L1D, 1x 2 MB L2, and 1x 6 MB L3. It's possible that the chip's design is very similar to a conventional "Alder Lake" processor—with a centralized L3 cache and client interconnect fabric, an uncore, and an iGPU; but with no P-cores, just the two "Gracemont" E-core clusters, each with 2 MB of L2 cache shared among 4 cores.
"Gracemont" lacks HyperThreading support, which makes this chip 8-core/8-thread. The chip comes with clock speeds of 1.80 GHz base, with 3.80 GHz boost. The chip scores a fairly high single-thread Geekbench number of 1025 points, but with 4420 points multi-thread. This would put the processor's performance roughly on-par with AMD "Renoir" Ryzen 4000-series mobile processors in the multi-threaded score; but its single-threaded score is quite-something, on par with a "Cezanne" Ryzen 5000-series mobile chip.
Sources: Benchleaks (Twitter), VideoCardz
Add your own comment

38 Comments on Intel Core i3 N300 is a Core Processor with Just E-cores That Somehow Isn't an Atom or Pentium Silver

#26
flim
Faster than my i7-4790
Posted on Reply
#27
_JP_
Least ye not forget that the last Intel named models like "Nxxx" was this:
Posted on Reply
#29
R0H1T
_JP_Least ye not forget that the last Intel named models like "Nxxx" was this:
Not really, the last Nxxx (Pentium) scores ~
Posted on Reply
#30
Valantar
Luke357Maybe with this someone could make a cheap Windows tablet that doesn't suck.
Sadly it likely kind of would, as system responsiveness with only low clocked E cores would be pretty bad.
Posted on Reply
#31
ARF
ValantarSadly it likely kind of would, as system responsiveness with only low clocked E cores would be pretty bad.
8 cores that are faster than the original Skylake core are not bad at all. The system responsiveness will be great.
But for a tablet, they have to decrease the TDP even further down to 2 watts or 3 watts maximum..
Posted on Reply
#32
Valantar
ARF8 cores that are faster than the original Skylake core are not bad at all. The system responsiveness will be great.
But for a tablet, they have to decrease the TDP even further down to 2 watts or 3 watts maximum..
Faster than Skylake in terms of IPC. The low clock speeds is what will cause poor system responsiveness - there's a reason why CPUs boost to their peak clock from idle in just a few ms, as that greatly benefits perceived system responsiveness in desktop usage. And clocks will be low, given the small TDP, even if these are all E cores. It might be able to run two cores at close to 4GHz, but no more than that, and likely not for long either.
Posted on Reply
#33
lexluthermiester
My only complaint about this CPU is the single channel RAM. 100% deal-breaker. It would otherwise be a solid little CPU. Way to glimp a good CPU Intel..
Posted on Reply
#34
trparky
ArcoWhat the heck?
That's what I'm thinking. Where's the market for this? Dumb terminals?
Posted on Reply
#35
_JP_
R0H1TNot really, the last Nxxx (Pentium) scores ~
Granted, those were well slotted in the market, for Pentiums. I was referencing the actual "N" followed by just 3 digits. :laugh: The last ones were Atoms and they were not, in fact, anywhere near acceptable performance.
trparkyThat's what I'm thinking. Where's the market for this? Dumb terminals?
1L sized desktops for office work. A heavy-duty NAS. A stremaing/IPTV box. The next high-tech outrageous-number WiFi compatible router. Handhelds. Entry-level laptops.
I mean, this chip has better scores than the i5 8365U I'm typing in right now and I feel the i5 is no slouch.
Posted on Reply
#36
R0H1T
ARF8 cores that are faster than the original Skylake core are not bad at all. The system responsiveness will be great.
But for a tablet, they have to decrease the TDP even further down to 2 watts or 3 watts maximum..
They'll go against Mendocino probably, so maybe 5-10% between them overall. The AMD chips will have much better GPU though.
www.techpowerup.com/299034/amd-ryzen-and-athlon-7020-mendocino-6nm-processors-launched-for-entry-level-notebooks
_JP_The last ones were Atoms and they were not, in fact, anywhere near acceptable performance.
The last (original) Atoms died on 22nm when Intel gave up the mobile/tablet market. Since then they've generally been getting progressively better, Intel also had this internal goal (target?) that Atoms will not exceed 50% performance of the "big" cores. Not sure if this has changed recently but it was the case for a long time.
Posted on Reply
#37
Luke357
ValantarSadly it likely kind of would, as system responsiveness with only low clocked E cores would be pretty bad.
Compared to your typical 2 or 4 core Pentium, Celeron or Atom it would be nice and snappy. As they have very slow clockspeeds too. This should run circles around my old Surface 3 (Atom X7 Z8700) and might even outperform my old 4690K in a few scenarios.
Posted on Reply
#38
Valantar
Luke357Compared to your typical 2 or 4 core Pentium, Celeron or Atom it would be nice and snappy. As they have very slow clockspeeds too. This should run circles around my old Surface 3 (Atom X7 Z8700) and might even outperform my old 4690K in a few scenarios.
The 4690k? Yes, absolutely. Higher IPC and likely similar clock speeds, though there's a question of whethet L3 cache latency differences would complicate things. Modern core-based celerons or pentiums would depend entirely on the specifics of that cpu - the architecture and how high they clock, and how aggressively they are power limited in short term boost. Of course, any 2c2t CPU would be too busy with background tasks to be responsive in the first place, so that's kind of a given too. But any modern i3 would most likely kick its butt in regular desktop use simply from more headroom to boost high(er) and more frequently.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Sep 26th, 2024 22:33 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts