Intel Core i3-14100F: Four cores whipped to the max

Intel Core i3-14100F in detail

It’s the fastest Core i3 yet, but it’s also the hungriest. The 14100F’s (Raptor Lake Refresh) biggest competition in its own ranks is in the form of older models (13100F and 12100F). These are a bit slower, but lower-power. The “better” choice depends on what holds more weight on your scales. Maybe it will be that record-breaking speed? In this class (Core i3), power consumption is always relatively low.

Intel Core i3-14100F in detail

The third-generation Core i3 processor for the LGA 1700 platform is built on the smallest Intel big.LITTLE chip, physically with six P cores (i.e., stepping H0).

There are four of them active in this case again and it is an 8-thread processor. It is possible that prospectively it will be the fastest quad-core processor, unless the Ci3-14100F is beaten by Intel within Bartlett Lake, where perhaps instead of even more aggressively clocked four cores two will be added, if at all this generation will see the light of day (there is still a question mark hanging over it).

The Core i3 Raptor Lake with 58 W TDP differs from its predecessors with higher clock speeds. Intel increases these by 200 MHz from generation to generation. Compared to the Core i3-13100/F (4300 MHz), it’s already 4500 MHz for all (4) P cores. The PL2 value is 89 W, as is the case with the Core i3-12100/F (Alder Lake), but that doesn’t mean comparable power consumption.The latter is higher with the Core i3-14100/F, the highest. And quite naturally so, as the manufacturing process hasn’t changed (although some minor “silent” revisions may have occurred over time) and the CPU core clock speeds are increasing.

The parameters talk about the power limit, which may not be used to the fullest for some processors and for others goes to the edge, which is also the case with the latest Core i3-14100/F processors. In the tests, I’ll be looking at the variant with the letter “F” in the designation, which, unlike the Core i3-14100, has a deactivated graphics core.

Rather than office PCs (which would require a graphics card to be added, which doesn’t make much sense in most cases), the Core i3-14100F is primarily aimed at low-end gaming PCs. Or to simpler systems for which for some reason the iGPU (Ci3-14100) is not enough and a graphics card is required.

In this segment, Intel is somewhat without competition, AMD abandoned the production of low-end processors already in the generation of Ryzen 3000 (Matisse), where quad-core models Ryzen 3 3100 and Ryzen 3 3300X were only available for a while, at the beginning (at least in Europe, that is).

Flattr this!

Comments (4) Add comment

  1. Thank you for the article. I have been looking for 14th gen non-K cpu reviews.

    Do you have an explanation why does 14100 take so much more power at idle, compared to 13100? In the other power graphs too, 13100 seems to be an outlier… I expected 14100 to be basically the same cpu, just being produced using a tad better refined process, and the clocks whipped up a bit.

    1. More aggressive clock speed management. The Core i3-14100F does not go to 400 MHz like the Core i3-13100F (although the working range of the multiplier should be the same). I’m not saying it never does, but not at the level of our load corresponding to “idle”. And it won’t be on the edge either, nothing changed by terminating some processes (for example launchers) in the background, after which less load is put on the processor. Sometimes, under the same conditions, the Ci3-14100F doesn’t underclock as aggressively (as the Ci3-13100F). I can’t note what this is related to, but it might have something to do with a more aggressive TB (2.0), which makes the processor run at higher clock speeds even at very low load.

  2. Sounds plausible.

    Did you re-test 12100 and 13100 using the same exact OS version? I am also thinking if the silicon lottery may play a role, I have seen a test of multiple cpus of the exact same model, and the results were somewhat divergent. (Do not remember the source, I think it was Der8auer.)

    1. No, we haven’t re-tested the Ci3-12100F and Ci3-13100F, but we are still using Windows 10 (22H2). For the reason that it does not change as dynamically as W11 and is therefore more suitable for building a massive database. It would never be possible to make with the kind of tests we do here otherwise.

      I can assure you that it is definitely not about “silicon lottery”. I find Der8baer’s tests very irresponsible and unreliable. To accurately analyze such things, a controlled, consistent testing environment is essential, which he does not have. This is extremely important for processors such as the Ryzen 5 7600, which are particularly sensitive to temperature changes. Rather than real differences between processors, his results are more a reflection of how ambient conditions change during individual tests. These include, among other things, the mounting of the cooler on the processor, which is defined by an always equal heat transfer from the processor to the cooler. This is also very difficult to achieve.

      We also used to deal with the dependence of the cooling performance on the different techniques of applying thermal paste and its different quantities. And also the influence of different pressure. All this is necessary to control in order to analyze the properties across different pieces of the same processor. It doesn’t seem that these things are any special concern of the author testing with the motherboard “installed” on its box and components randomly spread on the table. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *