Intel Core i3-6100
Is this dual-core 14nm a monster bargain?
Skylake is a curious beast. On one hand, it’s progressive, advanced and capable of handling the gloriousness of the Z170 chipset. On the other hand, it’s pricey, doesn’t offer a huge boost in performance over its predecessor and was tricky to get hold of when it launched.
Let’s be honest, this CPU isn’t for gaming or high-end computing, certainly not for the vast majority of us. Since you’re reading this, you’re either already well-equipped or looking to get, at the very least, a Core i5 for gaming. If not Skylake, then Devil’s Canyon or Haswell.
So what is this for? DIY NAS systems, Steam streaming rigs, sitting-room gaming stations and home theater machines.
And what’s the difference between the $169 Core i3-6100 and its $329 Core i5-6600 compadre? Well, the i3 features two physical cores versus the i5’s four — though hyperthreading does bump that up to four logical processors — it has half the amount of L3 cache, and its TDP is 40W lower. Otherwise, you get the same Intel HD 530 Graphics, the same support for DDR4/ DDR3, and the same access to those 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes.
So when you consider that the Core i5-6600 has a base frequency of 3.3GHz against the i3’s 3.7GHz, you might be asking why the i5 is so much better. It comes down to the limitations of logical cores.
A good way to think of hyperthreading is like this: a physical processor is a mouth and a single hand. That hand can feed the processor once every cycle. Add hyperthreading and you essentially add an extra hand (or a logical core), enabling you to use two hands to feed the same mouth. Although it’s not as effective as having two mouths, it’s still a lot faster than just using one hand.
Does this show up in testing? Yep. In almost all of our computational tasks, the i3-6100 was far slower than its i5 counterpart. In CineBench R15, the difference was close to 200 points. HWBot’s x265 benchmark saw a difference of 5fps, and in game, over four separate titles, the average frame rate dropped by 13–15fps.
But this isn’t a triple-A gaming core. Nor is it a high-end processor for render workstations. Where the Core i3-6100’s strength lies is within entry-level systems. It’s great for older titles or less intense games, such as MOBAs and MMOs (cough, WoW). For an office and email PC for your grandma, it’s ideal. And we can’t forget about that power draw. Even with our meaty test system — with 32GB of DDR4, a Samsung 950 Pro, GeForce GTX 980 and ASUS Maximus VIII Formula — under load, the Core i3 pulled 22W less than an i5-6600K, and remained a constant three degrees cooler, too, making it ideal for a do-it-yourself NAS or home theatre PC.
But is this a good CPU? Well, that depends entirely on your perspective, and what you need.
For HTPCs and livingroom gaming, definitely. For triple-A titles and gaming at 4K, definitely not. For hardcore simulations, 3D renders, and intensive applications, of course not. But you already knew that.
For the price, it’s a strong entry-point processor, a good all-rounder, and for that, we’re more than happy to score the Core i3-6100 a solid four out of five.