Intel 300 CPU Tested, a Budget Dual Core "14th Gen" Option
A conglomerate of Japanese hardware outlets has tested Intel's latest batch of Raptor Lake Refresh desktop processors—their findings arrived in the form of a YouTube video (viewable below). The lowly Intel 300 CPU was sampled as part of PAD's lab tests—this 14th generation model serves as a natural successor to Team Blue's Pentium Gold G7400 processor. Pentium and Celeron brands were retired in the "essential product space" in 2022, along with the introduction of a replacement: simple "Intel Processor" in a light blue color scheme.
Expectations are not set very high for a two-core, 4-thread CPU in modern times—some news outlets believe that this an Alder Lake part (AKA a frequency tweaked Pentium Gold G7400), despite being launched alongside many Raptor Lake Refresh parts. The Intel 300 sports two Raptor Cove P-cores with hyper-threading capabilities—base performance is set at 3.9 GHz, with no provisions for boosting above that figure. The rest of its basic specs consist of a 46 W TDP and 6 MB of L3 cache (3 MB on each core). Team Blue's Core i3-14100 quad core CPU sits just above the 300 in the latest batch of 14th Gen—naturally, the former pulls ahead of the latter in synthetic benchmarks. PC Watch and Co. tests present a maximum 55% multi-core performance gap between the two lower end options, although the single-threaded difference was measured 13% (in Cinebench).
Expectations are not set very high for a two-core, 4-thread CPU in modern times—some news outlets believe that this an Alder Lake part (AKA a frequency tweaked Pentium Gold G7400), despite being launched alongside many Raptor Lake Refresh parts. The Intel 300 sports two Raptor Cove P-cores with hyper-threading capabilities—base performance is set at 3.9 GHz, with no provisions for boosting above that figure. The rest of its basic specs consist of a 46 W TDP and 6 MB of L3 cache (3 MB on each core). Team Blue's Core i3-14100 quad core CPU sits just above the 300 in the latest batch of 14th Gen—naturally, the former pulls ahead of the latter in synthetic benchmarks. PC Watch and Co. tests present a maximum 55% multi-core performance gap between the two lower end options, although the single-threaded difference was measured 13% (in Cinebench).