Web browsing

High-clock-rate Phenom II CPUs do greatly here, outperforming even the low-end Sandy Bridge processors. Note how performance depends on the number of cores: we've found out that 6 is too many before, now we can see that 2 is enough. As a result, Core i3-2100 finishes fourth (second in its group).

Audio encoding

What joy, it's the only group of tests where Core 2 Quad Q8200 is faster than Core i3. But we all know how parallelizing is organized here: by encoding as many files at once as many threads a processor has. This naturally brushes dual and triple-core AMD processors aside, because even their efficiency per thread doesn't help. Processors with Hyper-Threading suffer too, because all four threads turn out to be the same, and that interferes with efficient load balancing in each pair. Core i5-680, thanks to its phenomenal clock rate, manages to get close to the low-end processor with four physical cores.

Video encoding

This group of tests shares the same idea, but differs much in actual organization. Here we rely on software optimizations and don't try to improve anything manually. This has an immediate effect on test results: a fast dual-core CPU doesn't lag behind a slow quad-core CPU much, while a fast triple-core processor does even better. Solutions with virtual cores do well, too. But it's still obvious that video processing requires at least an Athlon II X4, at least four physical cores, HT or not.

Games

Despite our best efforts, games still do not need four cores at all. We even added the purely calculational Fritz chess to the test method, but the dual-core Phenom II X2 560 performs not much slower than the low-end quad-core processor. And if a CPU has three cores (or two cores with HT) and enough cache, it's already a parity. Core i3-2100, in turn, does even better and competes with higher-end quad-core CPUs as well. Games, by the way, are another group of tests where Core i3-2100 outperforms Core i5-680, the high-end dual-core CPU of the previous generation.

Conclusions

Although this review is dedicated to Core i3-2100, we'd like to mention two outsiders first: Phenom II X2 560 and Core 2 Quad Q8200. The results of the latter are logical: it's an old, discontinued solution we used solely as a reference point. But its results are indicative to say the least. As you can see, architectures evolve, so there are no reasons to say that four cores are always better than two. That was true, when Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad were radically different. But since that time, triple core solutions from AMD and Intel's dual-core CPUs with Hyper-Threading have been released. Some four years ago, Core 2 eXtreme QX6700 could be admirable and bewildering at the same time. Today it's mostly the latter, even its price is reduced by three or four times. Even though software industry has focused on multi-core solutions since then, those old processors cannot be saved. For example, Core 2 Quad Q9500 and Core i3-2100 have the same overall score in our tests. And Core i3-2100 is a mainstream dual-core processor with a small die and low power consumption.

Phenom II X2 is a bit harder to evaluate. Frankly speaking, we considered this lineup a temporary measure to hold out until multi-core Athlon II CPUs begin to spread. But AMD is persistently developing this lineup and have recently announced Phenom II X2 565. We wish they would've put as much effort into Phenom II X3 instead. Those lineups probably have similar cost prices, so models like 750 and 760 could've been sold for the same 100-110 dollars. Phenom II X2 was a good rival to Core 2 Duo, but now the only incentive to buy it is the chance to unlock one or two extra cores.

Now let's get back to Core i3-2100. At first glance it doesn't seem very interesting. Yes, it outperforms the entire Core i3-500 lineup, but yields to most Core i5-600 as well as Core i5-2300. But no one has expected it to set records either, because it's a low-end processor positioned only above Pentiums and Celerons. It also costs like Core i3-540 (and 1.5x less than Core i5-2300, too), although it's faster than Core i3-560. And Core i5-600 prices are simply ridiculous. Another good thing is that Core i3-2100 has 65W TDP (vs. 73W of other aforementioned solutions). And there's also Core i3-2120 that, thanks to another 200 MHz of clock rate may even compete with Core i5-680 while being priced at less than $150.

In other words, processors like Core i3-2100 are in their places in terms of both price and performance. In due time, we liked the Core i3-500 lineup very much. Now we like Core i3-2000 even more. We wish this lineup was bigger, although the noticeable price difference between Core i3-2120 and Core i3-2300 gives us hope that it may be expanded. Let's hope those new solutions will be as good.

We express gratitude to Gigabyte and Crucial for providing equipment for the testbeds.

Write a comment below. No registration needed!