The Core i3-6100TE: An Unlikely Candidate?

Because of Supermicro’s big story regarding base clock frequency overclocking on non-K processors with non-Z platforms, it was imperative that we also get a non-K processor in to test with it. Typically Intel only seeds the top processors for review, and we had not had a chance to get other processors in to test when this motherboard arrived, so Supermicro also seeded us a Core i3 processor.

The Core i3-6100TE is an unlikely candidate for this testing. It’s not a processor that a user can go out and buy. The TE designation is a variant of Intel’s low power processors, whereby a T processor is typically 45W and the TE models are even lower - in this case 35W. These processors are typically for larger customers only, or the bigger OEMs, so you are more likely to see them in mini-PCs or all-in-ones rather than custom builds. If you are lucky, a big system distributor (think Dell or Lenovo) or even a large system integrator might have access to them and offer them for sale as part of a system. But by and large, aside from eBay, you would be lucky to find one for sale on its own unless you have a distributor nearby that sells OEM parts.

There are several angles to testing the CPU as well. Firstly, as a processor in its own right – where does it sit in the stack and if the price merit the performance and power characteristics. Secondly, as a tool for overclocking, and can we verify that the changes Supermicro have made to the C7H170-M to enable base clock overclocking on processors like this actually works. Then the third angle, which is perhaps the biggest: How well does an overclocked i3 processor actually perform, and why does Intel not offer an i3-K equivalent?

We will be addressing each of these questions as part of this review.

The Market

For those who are not keeping many tabs on the processor market, Intel’s mainstream desktop processor line comes in five flavors:

Flavor   Power Price Notes
Core i7 4 Cores
8 Threads
35W to 95W $300-$340 High performance
2 MB L3 Cache per core
Enthusiast focused
Core i5 4 Cores
4 Threads
65W to 91W $180-$242 More palatable price,
No Hyperthreading,
1.5 MB L3 Cache per core
Still for enthusiasts
Core i3 2 Cores
4 Threads
35W to 54W $117-$150 Mid-range CPU performance
All except -P with HD 530 graphics
No turbo mode.
Pentium 2 Cores
2 Threads
35W to 54W $64-$86 Lower CPU performance.
1.5 MB L3 Cache per core
No turbo mode.
Celeron 2 Cores
2 Threads
35W to 54W $42-$52 Low CPU/GPU performance.
Low-cost option.
1 MB L3 Cache per core
No turbo mode.

Within each of these flavors, processors will have a number that indicates their position in the stack (e.g. i7-6700, i3-6300), and some will also have a letter that indicates the segment they are in. The several types, for Skylake, are:

Type Example Meaning
-K i7-6700K Overclocking processor,
Multiplier unlocked. 91W
no letter i5-6500 Standard processor, locked, 51W-65W
-T i3-6100T Even lower power processor, 35W
-TE i3-6100TE Similar to T but with a lower base frequency.
Aimed at OEMs/embedded. 35W
-P i3-6098P Special part for specific OEMs,
Typically high CPU and low IGP. 54W/65W
Not Currently Used in Skylake
-S (e.g. i5-4690S) i5-4690S Lower power processor, ~65W
-R (e.g. i5-5675R) i5-5675R Uses eDRAM, soldered down
-C (e.g. i5-5675C) i5-5675C Uses eDRAM, socketed CPU

Not all processor segments (C/P/i3/i5/i7) combine with every type (K/S/T/TE), and it mostly ends up being a pick and choose depending on how Intel sees the market. So for example, for desktop processors, Skylake has three Core i7 (one K, one T), five Core i5 (one K, one P), seven Core i3 (two T, one TE, one P), six Pentium (two T, one TE) and four Celeron (one T, one TE) parts.

Choosing the CPU, and the Overclocking Conundrum

When a user, or an OEM/SI, needs a processor, several factors come into play. Assuming that they definitely need a Skylake part, the three things most people focus on are performance, cost and power. Depending on which one is the most vital automatically limits the choices – if a user needs the most performance, then a Core i5 or Core i7 is on the cards, or if the user needs something under $120, then the low-model Core i3 parts are as high as you go.

Most enthusiasts who want to overclock have a different set of requirements. At current, only two Skylake processors allow multiplier overclocking – the Core i5-6600K and Core i7-6700K, which we reviewed and looked into overclocking scaling last year. These are 91W parts that start at $242 for the i5, making entry into this market for mainstream enthusiasts only.

It wasn't always like this. Several generations ago, overclocking (via the base frequency) occurred with every CPU that was on sale, and users would regularly go after the mid-range part with a good cooler and overclock it to be the equivalent of a high-performance processor. It made computing fun, and got me into the world of competitive overclocking which actually ended up with me working for AnandTech, so I’m a nice big advocate for it. To reach back into the nostalgia stakes, back in 2014, with the launch of Haswell’s Devil’s Canyon parts, Intel also launched an overclockable Pentium processor, the Pentium G3258.

The idea behind the G3258 was to offer a cheaper processor (~$72) that could be overclocked and offer a low cost entry into the world of overclocking. As with every review website, we tested the Pentium G3258 in both default and overclocked mode. There were two main conclusions. Firstly, the single core performance at 4.2 GHz was great and it felt like a high-end processor for day-to-day tasks like browsing the web and email. Secondly, because it was physically still a dual-core Pentium processor, overclocking it did not elevate it to the status of a coveted Core i5 at a third of the cost. So despite the price, enthusiasts looking at some interesting cheap overclocking and performance were not impressed, and went back to the Core i5/i7 processors because of the fundamental performance difference.

Intel did not release a Pentium G3258 equivalent for Skylake, so we cannot probe that segment. But one thing that did come out of the G3258 testing was a question on a lot of people’s lips: would an overclockable Core i3 provide enough performance to go after some of the big guns?

Intel has never expressed much interest in an unlocked Core i3. Some users might argue that the G3258 felt more of a forced part because it was never given a name with the ‘K’ unlocked designation, such as the G3240K (the base processor was a G3240 underneath). Despite Intel’s PR enthusiasm for overclocking, it seems they only want it at the high end of their product stack. An astute observer might point out that offering a cheaper part might cut into sales, especially average selling price, and Intel has no competition beyond an i3 right now so it makes sense they do not want to talk about it. But everyone wants to know ‘if’ an i3 can branch out in performance.

So this is where Supermicro’s C7H170-M motherboard, our Core i3-6100TE sample, and this review comes in.

It also makes the story regarding base clock overclocking being enabled, then removed, then kind of enabled again interesting to follow.

Results then Overclocking

The next few pages will showcase our usual CPU benchmark suite. Alongside the Core i3-6100TE at stock frequencies, we will also put in our overclocked numbers for our 135% stable overclock (moving from 2.7 GHz to 3.645 GHz) as well as results from processors in that range to which we have data for. After the results, we will discuss the actual process of overclocking, and the results of scaling the base frequency from 100 MHz to 145 MHz. Then we will take a page to answer the question: is overclocking a Core i3 actually worth it?

All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.

Motherboard Gaming Performance Core i3-6100TE Office and Web Performance
Comments Locked

62 Comments

View All Comments

  • Taristin - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    Total War: Atilla shows the incorrect graph for performance with a GTX card. It shows the Alien Isolation score (Which is... significantly different!)
  • yannigr2 - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    Did I saw an Athlon 845 somewhere in there? Is a review incoming?
  • Bad Bimr - Thursday, March 17, 2016 - link

    I miss the days of the cheap CPU with BIG TIME OC potential. My first foray in OCing was with the legendary Celeron 300A. That got me hooked. Next was the P3 600 and next came the P4 2.8 (Northwood) followed by the i7-920. Last year I bought a i7-4790k only to sell it when I came upon a thread on X-58 Xeon overclocking. Currently rocking a very conservative Xeon x5675 @ 4.15 Ghz (25x166) on stock voltage on air on all 6 cores with HT on. I have had it stable to 4.4 GHz but feel better with the lower voltage, plenty fast enough. Total cost for the x5675, $76 on eBay! I love cheap CPU overclocking.
  • OrphanageExplosion - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    This is a remarkable article. Anandtech has overclocked a *really slow* Core i3 processor so that it's not as fast as the slowest consumer-level i3 and written a *15-page* piece on it?!

    Why didn't you just buy the Core i3 6100?

    The data elsewhere demonstrates why Intel never released a K i3 - it gives quad-like performance for gaming at 4.4GHz, where the i5 is king. The value argument is diluted a bit by the fact you will need a third party cooler though, while the i5 6500 is pretty awesome just with a stock HSF and some fast DDR4.

    I really, really hope that AMD targets this sector aggressively with Zen - it could be a game-changer.
  • ReverendDC - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    The perfect explanation why AMD is needed in the CPU space as well. No competition = restrictions to force more purchases from a single vendor.
  • Achaios - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    I was thinking, looking at the gaming benchmarks, that I am going to be stuck with the 4770k for maaaaaaannnnyyyy years to come.
  • JoeyJoJo123 - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    I honestly think asking why an i3 K-series processor doesn't exist is an awful question.

    I think the real question here that everyone isn't asking is:
    "Why is Intel even selling non-K processors in anything but business grade (Xeon) CPUs?"

    Doing a 15 page investigation where you compare an awful starting point locked i3 sample (one that isn't even relevant to consumers), examining its overclocked results, and the results of a locked i5 sample, then concluding that yes, the lower grade processor indeed does have worse performance than an i5, that might be why they don't have a K-series i3, is both completely obvious yet misses the point entirely.

    Overclocking is a choice for the consumer. Whether or not the i3 part fully closes the gap with an i5 part is irrelevant, and if it doesn't close the gap, that's not a valid reason to then conclude that's why they don't sell K-series i3's. Overclocking gets me more performance than stock, and regardless of how big or small the overclock is, it should be up to the user to choose whether to overclock, not up to the manufacturer to dictate whether you can attempt to overclock at all (with non-K chips.)

    I still can't understand why people are trying to find logic in strategic marketing placement of Intel chips (ie: rationalizing it for Intel, exactly what their marketing department wants) when you should be asking "Why are you selling me a locked down chip? I should be free to run this at whatever level of performance I can muster, as after I purchase this product, it is wholly mine to use as I please"
  • RobATiOyP - Sunday, March 20, 2016 - link

    From the OEM & Intel's point of view, having ppl add volts & frequency to their complicated processors, may well lead to unstable chips or non-functioning, which may be (attempted) to be returned under warranty. If you buy a 3GHz locked CPU they're not fleecing you by not letting it be run faster, like options you pay more for.

    What is more annoying to me, is how there are various instruction options, like encryption & virtualisation which they turn on/off for market segmentation.
  • zodiacfml - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    Awesome. More care and effort was given here than I expected.
    Simply, Intel refuses to. Limiting higher frequencies to i5 and i7. The market Intel is limiting is gaming market. They might open it if AMD, miraculously, becomes competitive again.
  • TheHolyLancer - Friday, March 18, 2016 - link

    honestly i think the author missed the fact that intel( and amd to a point ) prices their stuff no-linearly

    to jump from a pentium to i3 may only be 50 but to jump from i5 to i7k or the extreme (well soon? for the 2011 revamp?) costs a lot more

    i remember the i7 920 too and with an oc i had i7 965 extreme levels of performance for way way cheaper

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now