It seems the Intel Core i3-10320 only exists to be an upselling option for Intel in their OEM and channel business. People who are considering the Core i3-10300, which didn't impress us by the way, will be tempted by a $10 higher price tag, and can in return go from 3.7 GHz base and 4.4 GHz boost to 3.8 GHz base and 4.6 GHz boost. Especially the extra 200 MHz on boost look interesting, particularly for gamers. All other specs are identical; same 4c/8t core configuration with 8 MB L3 cache and 65 W TDP. Just like the other Comet Lake processors, Intel's Core i3-10320 features HyperThreading because that was one of the easiest solutions for Intel to add extra performance to their lineup, so they wouldn't have to concede defeat to AMD's Ryzen CPUs. Previously, HyperThreading was reserved for Intel top SKUs only.

Application performance of the i3-10320 is decent for a quad-core and beats the six-core Core i5-9400F from last generation by a few percent. As expected, the i3-10320 is faster than the i3-10300, but only by 3.4%, which is a bit less than I expected considering the 4.5% increase in boost clock. Against AMD's offerings, the Core i3-10320 really can't compete. The Ryzen 3 3300X is a 4c/8t design, too, yet beats the Core i3-10320 by 2.5% even though the Core i3-10320 has a 300 MHz higher maximum boost rating and is $40 (or 33%) more expensive. 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. For their next-generation "Zen 3" processors, AMD is removing the CCX architecture; I expect Comet Lake won't be able to hold up against the upcoming Ryzen 4000 CPUs. If you don't need integrated graphics, the Core i5-10400F for the same price is the much better option because it's 14% faster due to its six-core/twelve-thread design. If you are willing to spend a little bit more, you can get the Ryzen 5 3600, which is 25% faster in apps, for $175.

Gaming performance of the Core i3-10320 is good, faster than any AMD processor in our test group. The Ryzen 3 3300X is 5% slower, and the Ryzen 3 3100 is 14% behind—at 1080p. If you go up in resolution, differences shrink because the bottleneck moves further from the CPU, and to the GPU. The Core i3-10300 is slightly slower than the Core i3-10320, by 1.3%, which isn't nothing, but not convincing enough to make the extra $10 a no-brainer. What is a safe investment, however, is to buy the Core i5-10400F instead of the Core i3-10320—same price, but a few percent higher gaming performance. 2.4% at 1080p isn't a huge difference either, but at no cost increase, it's reasonable. What's more important is that the Core 10400F is a six-core processor, which makes it better for future-proofing assuming games will have higher CPU requirements in the future—a possible scenario because of upcoming gaming consoles.

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? AMD faced serious social media drama over their Zen 2 processors not reaching promised boost clocks, and I'm wondering if maybe some class-action lawsuit could end up being a good thing so that companies have to provide realistic "up to" claims in the future. On a positive note, the Core i3-10320 is rated at a base clock of 3.8 GHz, which is an extremely conservative estimate. I measured 4.4 GHz even with all cores fully loaded with AVX, which is very good.

For the Core i9-10900K, Intel went all out with their boost algorithms; on top of classic Turbo Boost 2.0, they added Turbo Boost Max 3.0 and Thermal Velocity Boost. The i3 and i5 processors lack both Turbo 3.0 and TVB, which is a shame. I have no idea why Intel would exclude their two most advanced turbo modes on some models; it wouldn't have cost them anything, yet provides free performance. Turbo Boost 2.0 on the Core i3-10320 uses PL1 = 65 W and PL2 = 90 W. This means the processor can run at up to 90 W for a few seconds before throttling down to 65 W to achieve its TDP. We ran an extra round of tests to investigate whether there are any gains to be had from unlocking the power limit, which is possible on all motherboard and all chipsets. Our "Max Turbo" results confirm that there's no significant performance gain available, even when the processor is given the freedom to operate without power limits. This can be a good thing as you don't need to tweak the CPU to unlock its maximum potential, like the Core i7-10700, for example. If you plan to make heavy use of the integrated graphics, increasing the power limit could be reasonable because the limits are for the CPU and iGPU combined. The iGPU can draw up to 20 W, which could reduce the available power budget for the CPU to 40 W, although rather unlikely.

As denoted by the lack of the "K" suffix, the Core i3-10320 has no support for multiplier-based overclocking. AMD includes unlocked multipliers with all their processors, and that's the way to go as it's a strong driver for sales because it dangles "free extra performance" in front of potential customers. BCLK overclocking is still possible, up to 103 MHz, or 3%, which is not a lot and barely worth it. Overclocking on the Ryzen 3 3100 yields almost 10%, so it is definitely worth playing with; the Ryzen 3 3300X, on the other hand, has no headroom, so it's not a huge dealbreaker.

What is a dealbreaker, though, is pricing of the Core i3-10320. With $160, it is expensive, $40 more than the Ryzen 3 3300X. If you have a discrete graphics card, the 3300X is the better price/performance option. If you're focused on gaming with a GPU, I'd recommend the Core i5-10400F for the same price because it has more cores and threads, resulting in higher performance in both applications and games. Another alternative is the Core i3-10100, which is $30 cheaper, but only 5–6 % slower in apps and games. I could definitely see how people would be willing to spend an extra $10 for slightly higher performance with just the Core i3-10300 and i3-10320 in a vacuum, even if you just get $5 of your money back mathematically. The balance of power in this market segment will definitely shift if Intel can bring the price of their entire Core i3 lineup down by $30 or so and affordable B460/H410 motherboards don't disappoint because most Intel CPUs have something most Ryzens lack: integrated graphics good enough for desktop work, productivity, and Internet browsing.