Intel Core i3-10320

[W1zzard]

The Intel Core i3-10320 is just $10 more expensive than the Core i3-10300, and offers +200 MHz Boost and +100 MHz base clock. We'll check whether the extra cost is worth it, and also compare the Core i3-10320 to the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and Core i5-10400F.

Show full review

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Im starting to think that Intel are just deliberately flooding the market with as many Sku's as possible just to confuse the hell out of customers and i think its working because I have no idea what i am looking at...

A 4c|8t chip for $160 when a 6c|6t costs $20 more. but the 4c|8t is better than the 6c|6t..... Like really. Why do some of these CPUs even exist if not to obfuscate the hell out of everything?

Intel just wants it so every corner you turn, you walk face first into an intel box so you end up buying one rather than dig a little deeper for the AMD. Its like product placement. Flood the market with your products so that people see only your products and not the competitors.

 

[watzupken]

"While Intel promises up to 4.6 GHz boost for the Core i3-10320, I'd say that is BS. While I have seen the CPU boost up to 4.6 GHz for a split second, it's nothing that can seriously be considered realistic enough to be put on a specs sheet. Maybe next-gen will boost "up to" 6 GHz for 0.01 s, with spurts of insanely high voltage short enough not to damage anything—brave new world. I found it hard to reach even 4.5 GHz consistently with a single-threaded load; the data is on page 20. For one thread, my recorded average is around 4.45 GHz, where is the missing 150 MHz? "

I sense deep unhappiness from the reviewer. Haha.

Anyway, I agree this is a very poor value processor. The Ryzen 3 processors are much better value, though they are missing integrated graphic solution that should be addressed by Renoir soon.

Unfortunately Intel will still get away with it since most people are not tech savvy and will just scoop up one of Intel's "newest" CPU.

 

[$ReaPeR$]

Im starting to think that Intel are just deliberately flooding the market with as many Sku's as possible just to confuse the hell out of customers and i think its working because I have no idea what i am looking at...

A 4c|8t chip for $160 when a 6c|6t costs $20 more. but the 4c|8t is better than the 6c|6t..... Like really. Why do some of these CPUs even exist if not to obfuscate the hell out of everything?

Intel just wants it so every corner you turn, you walk face first into an intel box so you end up buying one rather than dig a little deeper for the AMD. Its like product placement. Flood the market with your products so that people see only your products and not the competitors.

That's the only reason this product exists.

 

[Lindatje]

AMD’s IPC is better with or without CCX. Remember the Ryzen 3000 is a year old and cheaper.

 

[1d10t]

...and soon Intel will launch i3-10340 with 4.1Ghz base 4.8Ghz boost

AMD’s IPC is better with or without CCX. Remember the Ryzen 3000 is a year old and cheaper.

Can you elaborate how is this even possible? Without CCX, I mean really ?

 

[vlad.coolish]

Intel says 4.6GHz MAX
TPU measured 4487MHz MAX
Where is my missing 113 MHz

 

[Lindatje]

...and soon Intel will launch i3-10340 with 4.1Ghz base 4.8Ghz boost



Can you elaborate how is this even possible? Without CCX, I mean really ?

You know what i mean if you have read the review.

This is clear evidence that AMD has caught up to Intel in terms of IPC, actually beating them when the Ryzen uses just a single CCX, as with the Ryzen 3300X.

 

[yeeeeman]

This is a 10100 with 300mhz extra for 30$ more? That is silly.

 

[QUANTUMPHYSICS]

You're better off getting an i7 in a laptop or an i9 for a desktop and completely bypassing this low-end list - if you can.

 

[HEisUS20]

With 3300x and a b450 motherboard, you can get a b-die ram kit of 3200mhz and OC it to 3600mhz and do some tweaking at timings and you'll get more performance, and you'll still be able to have a better value than i3 10320.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Welp, just looking at the data this is a factual statement:

On games, with a Z490 motherboard (which runs ~$150 right now) and DDR4-3200 RAM, the i3-10320 is faster than every single Ryzen processor on the market at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K.

I'm still confused how we get from that fact to a bunch of people building systems clearly meant for gaming based on the 3600 and B450.

 

[HEisUS20]

Welp, just looking at the data this is a factual statement:

On games, with a Z490 motherboard (which runs ~$150 right now) and DDR4-3200 RAM, the i3-10320 is faster than every single Ryzen processor on the market at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K.

I'm still confused how we get from that fact to a bunch of people building systems clearly meant for gaming based on the 3600 and B450.

Faster, yeah, kinda. But 3600 with a b450 like b450m-ds3h is one of the best pair. 3600 will benefit of better frametime, it will be way smoother than i3 10320. Higher fps doesn't always mean smoother.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Faster, yeah, kinda. But 3600 with a b450 like b450m-ds3h is one of the best pair. 3600 will benefit of better frametime, it will be way smoother than i3 10320. Higher fps doesn't always mean smoother.

I was unable to find factual information to back up your claim (you should be doing that you know) for the 10320.

However, I was able to find information to refute it.

Intel Core i3-9350KF Review: Coffee Lake's Stagnant Waters

Too little, too late?

www.tomshardware.com

Given that the 4c/4t i3-9350K doesn't have frametime low issues you describe, I find it unlikely that the 4c/8t 10320 would. Notice where the 3600 and 3600X stand (from Tom's). They are getting walloped on both avg and 1% low fps. In this article, Ashes of the Singularity was the only place the 3600 really beat the i3-9350K. There are certainly a few games that need lots of threads, but they are not the ones most played.