Intel 300 CPU Tested, a Budget Dual Core "14th Gen" Option

[[XC] Oj101]

There's a difference between running some embedded x86 thing and a "regular desktop cpu." ATMs tend to be sbcs with soldered on cpus as far as I know.

The one I saw stuck on the POST screen had a Pentium 4, possibly a 1.4GHz but I can't recall - it was many many years ago. I just remember thinking to myself "I wonder if you could game on it"

 

[wNotyarD]

The one I saw stuck on the POST screen had a Pentium 4, possibly a 1.4GHz but I can't recall - it was many many years ago. I just remember thinking to myself "I wonder if you could game on it"

You could certainly run Doom.

 

[R-T-B]

The one I saw stuck on the POST screen had a Pentium 4, possibly a 1.4GHz but I can't recall - it was many many years ago. I just remember thinking to myself "I wonder if you could game on it"

I would think that's unusual but admitedly I don't work on atms so who the heck can say. Mystery money boxes lol.

 

[Macro Device]

I would think that's unusual but admitedly I don't work on atms so who the heck can say. Mystery money boxes lol.

Those I attempted to rob (actually I was withdrawing cash from my bank account on a legal basis...) were based on obsolete, yet completely no nonsense desktop CPUs such as Celeron E1200 and Athlon X2 250.

 

[efikkan]

...and even more CPUs that cost the same and are of 4 cores or even more than that. Wattage is configurable via BIOS, unless it's some obscure badly Chinese motherboard.

These 2C4T CPUs are atrocious performers, atrocious value and should not exist. Giving Intel 300 the same price and a bit higher clocks but 4 real cores, even if with no HT enabled, would be a good and reasonable thing to do.

What makes you think that these are "atrocious" performers?
Are your opinions based on your impressions from old CPUs like Core 2 Duo and Athlon 64 X2?
Or are these based on reviews featuring workloads irrelevant for very basic users?

Intel 300 have two high-performing cores, and for users who only do very light workloads, like basic office work and light surfing, these would be plenty. Most basic applications will not scale significantly beyond two cores, and you can get incredible value from this if combined with a Linux distro and e.g. LibreOffice (which is very light), and don't load it up with other bloatware. For the very basic users, this could offer a decent user experience with a very low price.
(P.s., I'm not suggesting you or any enthusiast buy one )

 

[Macro Device]

Are your opinions based on your impressions from old CPUs like Core 2 Duo and Athlon 64 X2?

Definitely nope. I used an i3-6100 recently just because that's what I got as a part of my payment after helping with upgrading PCs at some office. Okay, 6100 is nearly a decade old and its efficiency is questionable to say the least if we compare it to the next-genous "Intel 300" but I also invested my time into testing my own i5-12400F with 4 of 6 cores disabled.

So, having three or four times the cache and about 600 MHz on top of what this double-core CPU offers I was a little bit offended. Browsing wasn't very smooth, some not-so-well optimised web pages, perfectly capable of running smoothly on a fully enabled i5, were a little bit of stuttery mess on this 2-core nonsense. Gaming was just not here, anything recent is just thrown outta the window. I agree with the point it's enough for those whose most demanding task is launching Google Chrome and watching ASMRs on YouTube, yet that's still very pricey for this level of performance considering what you can get if you pay just 40 dollars more. i3-12100 provides at least 20% single-core performance uplift which is never a bad thing for "basic" users and at least 150% multi-core performance uplift which is useful for everybody.

Buyers save extremely little money and get their performance sliced and diced. 120 dollars for a CPU capable of your "basic" tasks and almost any kinda gaming + some multi-tasking VS 80 dollars for a CPU that's only providing smooth Excel spreadsheet management. No-brainer all things considered. I also dare to remind you those "basic" users virtually never upgrade their PCs so buying a CPU that will become obsolete a decade before they buy a new PC is not ideal. Pentium G4500, for example, became a complete pain train by 2019, yet i3-6100 felt relatively decent up until 2023. Their prices differed a little, their value is night and day. With Intel 300 and i3, this value difference is one order of magnitude bigger and price difference has shrunk even thinner.

 

[sLowEnd]

There's a difference between running some embedded x86 thing and a "regular desktop cpu." ATMs tend to be sbcs with soldered on cpus as far as I know.

Looking up "ATM CPU" brings up examples of various ATM boards using various regular CPUs like the E7400, E6550...etc., or even like this one that uses an i5 4570S

http://imgur.com/KgNqZOi

There are also embedded options, but both exist.

 

[chrcoluk]

Trying to find data to compare this to the N100, as I have a feeling the N100 is probably a faster chip (with 1/4 of the TDP).

The TDP seems ridiculously high for such a weak chip. I am guessing the clocks are probably aggressive for the silicon quality.

 

[Macro Device]

I have a feeling the N100 is probably a faster chip

In some multi core workloads those're not sensitive to cache that's true. Single core performance is at least twice as good in this re-branded Pentium G7400.

 

[thestryker6]

Trying to find data to compare this to the N100, as I have a feeling the N100 is probably a faster chip (with 1/4 of the TDP).

The only like for like benchmark from this which crosses with any N100 is Cinebench and the the N100 is slower in both single and multi which is to be expected. The N100 is just 4 E-cores and is limited to single channel memory (not that this likely matters a whole lot for these low core counts).

The TDP seems ridiculously high for such a weak chip. I am guessing the clocks are probably aggressive for the silicon quality.

The 300 has full connectivity of current Intel CPUs which certainly adds to it. The base clockspeed is also higher than any of the others because it has no boost. The 300 is 46W TDP at 3.9ghz and the 300T is 35W at 3.4ghz compared to a 12100 (4 core) which is 60W at 3.3ghz. It may seem high, but it's right in line with the rest.

 

[Helziken]

Absolute ewaste piece of sand.

 

[chrcoluk]

The only like for like benchmark from this which crosses with any N100 is Cinebench and the the N100 is slower in both single and multi which is to be expected. The N100 is just 4 E-cores and is limited to single channel memory (not that this likely matters a whole lot for these low core counts).

The 300 has full connectivity of current Intel CPUs which certainly adds to it. The base clockspeed is also higher than any of the others because it has no boost. The 300 is 46W TDP at 3.9ghz and the 300T is 35W at 3.4ghz compared to a 12100 (4 core) which is 60W at 3.3ghz. It may seem high, but it's right in line with the rest.

You confirmed it is high thanks, a approx 15% clock speed boost for a 33% TDP cost over the 300T.

 

[sLowEnd]

Absolute ewaste piece of sand.

Far from it. It repurposes a die that would otherwise be thrown out. It's not like Intel specifically created a new die just for this product.

 

[[XC] Oj101]

I can't bring myself to like the new naming.

Intel Processor 300 = confusing
Intel Core Ultra 7 processor 155H = WTF?

How about the following:

GeForce RTX graphics card 4090
Samsung 990 solid state drive Pro
Gigabyte B650 AORUS motherboard Elite
CORSAIR 4000D case AIRFLOW
AOC AGON monitor AG275QXR

 

[Arco]

I can't bring myself to like the new naming.

Intel Processor 300 = confusing
Intel Core Ultra 7 processor 155H = WTF?

How about the following:

GeForce RTX graphics card 4090
Samsung 990 solid state drive Pro
Gigabyte B650 AORUS motherboard Elite
CORSAIR 4000D case AIRFLOW
AOC AGON monitor AG275QXR

The monitor naming isn't great but otherwise I agree.