Intel 300 CPU benchmarks unsurprisingly show dual-core CPUs struggling in 2024

Generic Intel CPU
(Image credit: Shutterstock)

Intel's dual-core 300 CPU has been tested in a review by PC Watch, and while the branding has changed (or perhaps disappeared), the 300's performance is still very similar to the Pentium Gold G7400 that it succeeds. While the 300 is technically a serviceable CPU and even achieved 60 FPS or more in three of the four games PC Watch tested, it's not exactly a chip that warrants a shakeup in branding.

Although the Intel 300 coincides with the branding changes that arrived with Intel's Meteor Lake CPUs, this newish CPU uses the same Alder Lake chip as the Pentium Gold G7400 did. As such, it's a Raptor Lake Refresh CPU in name only. Both CPUs have two cores with Hyperthreading for four total threads, though the 300 does have an extra 200MHz worth of frequency and even support for AVX-VNNI, according to the official product page.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Intel 300 CPU Specifications
Row 0 - Cell 0 Intel 300Pentium Gold G7400Core i3-14100
Cores224
Threads448
Base Clock Speed3.9GHz3.7GHz3.5GHz
Boost Clock SpeedN/AN/A4.7GHz
Cache6MB L3 + 2.5MB L26MB L3 + 2.5MB L212MB L3 + 5MB L2
TDP46W46W110W

Realistically, the 300's extra 200MHz (or 5%) frequency gain is all that sets it apart from the G7400, and in PC Watch's testing, that didn't really make much of a difference. In many cases, performance was almost the same between the two CPUs, such as in Handbrake and Cinebench 2024. The 300 was slightly faster in games and, surprisingly, could sustain 60 FPS in every game but Cyberpunk 2077, where it was just a little short at 56 FPS. The 300 could even play the Resident Evil 4 remake at well over 60 FPS, though its two cores were pegged at 100% the entire time.

PC Watch also tested the Core i3-14100, a 4.7GHz version of the Core i3-13100 and 12100, and it was around twice as fast. That's not a surprising result considering it has twice the cores, twice the cache, and a frequency about 20% higher. Even for gamers only targeting 60 FPS, the 14100 provides an objectively better gaming experience as its 1% low framerate was always at least 60 FPS, which means the framerate virtually never dropped below 60 FPS. By contrast, the 300 had 1% low framerates significantly lower than 60 FPS in the two games.

The single significant advantage the 300 has is its power consumption, which was just 27 watts in Cyberpunk 2077, compared to the 14100's 65 watts. Additionally, the 300 has an MSRP of $77 to $87, while the Core i3-14100 and 14100F (which have disabled integrated graphics) go for $170 and $125 on Amazon, respectively. However, the 300 isn't yet available at retail, and even $50 more for around double the performance makes the 14100F look like the better deal.

Matthew Connatser

Matthew Connatser is a freelancing writer for Tom's Hardware US. He writes articles about CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, and computers in general.

  • Amdlova
    14100 110w tdp? Whatttttt
    On cyberpunk the 13100 barely hits 15w cpu usage :) something is wrong on that news
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    Amdlova said:
    14100 110w tdp? Whatttttt
    On cyberpunk the 13100 barely hits 15w cpu usage :) something is wrong on that news
    Base TDP is 60W, which still seems high. Max Turbo is 110W, which doesn't sound possible with a dual core CPU. Even the 13900K pulls "only" about 45W per core at max boost which is more than a GHz higher. I think Intel got their own specs wrong. 60W should probably be the max turbo power draw. 30W per core is probably about right for such a lowly binned CPU.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    Amdlova said:
    14100 110w tdp? Whatttttt
    On cyberpunk the 13100 barely hits 15w cpu usage :) something is wrong on that news
    That's the max turbo power specified by Intel for that part.
    https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/236774/intel-core-i3-processor-14100-12m-cache-up-to-4-70-ghz.html
    They probably should have listed the base power as well though, 60W, which is a better comparison against the other two chips (which only have a base power value as they don't support turbo).

    Edit: Looks like the actual power measured for the i3 in Cyberpunk 2077 was 65W.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    spongiemaster said:
    Base TDP is 60W, which still seems high. Max Turbo is 110W, which doesn't sound possible with a dual core CPU.
    The i3 is a quad core.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    TJ Hooker said:
    The i3 is a quad core.
    Derp, you're right. Article title was talking about dual core CPU's. Confused myself.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Unsurprising, but unfortunate that these seem to just be higher binned rebrands. Would be interesting to see how they'd fare when power limited against the N300/305. These could make for a pretty good microserver box.
    Reply
  • Neilbob
    I think it's a minor miracle Intel even bothered to allow them the 2 extra threads. Not that long ago they were still flogging 2C2T for low-end trash (or maybe they still are). But for crying out loud, surely they can't have enough imperfect dies to still warrant the 2 cores.

    Insufficient even for the majority of barrel-scraping OEM destined-to-be e-waste.
    Reply
  • jlake3
    ...and even achieved 60 FPS or more in three of the four games PC Watch tested

    and, surprisingly, could sustain 60 FPS in every game but Cyberpunk 2077, where it was just a little short at 56 FPS. The 300 could even play the Resident Evil 4 remake at well over 60 FPS, though its two cores were pegged at 100% the entire time.

    Couldn't pull out the settings used for us? Or the test setup? Or even the names of all the games?

    Most relevant info would be that both CPUs were paired with a RTX 4080 and DDR5-5600 that was running at 4800 for CPUs that didn't support the higher speed.

    CP2077 was 1080p low, FSR off.
    Resident Evil I saw a live demo, but no charts or settings.

    Seems Resident Evil doesn't count towards the "four games tested", as there were three additional sets of charts in addition to CP2077: Call of Duty 1080p minimum 100% resolution scaling, F1 '23 1080p ultra low 16xAA+TAA+FidelityFX, and Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord, 1080p very low battle size 1000.
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    Would a N97/N100 beat this? Looks like no... at least for the N100(60.5/195 cinebench 2024 score sing/multi)
    I would prefer a N97 though (stronger GPU than Intel 300) with enough TDP to use it.

    Would much rather they release a socketable e-core only variant starting at 4 cores rather than 2 P cores here but there must be a market for it. The numbers are stacking up on themselves at the low end, creating needless confusion, they should have held on to Pentium/Celeron names, or might as well give them some differentiation besides Nxxx and xxx.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    cyrusfox said:
    Would a N97/N100 beat this? Looks like no... at least for the N100(60.5/195 cinebench 2024 score sing/multi)
    I would prefer a N97 though (stronger GPU than Intel 300) with enough TDP to use it.

    Would much rather they release a socketable e-core only variant starting at 4 cores rather than 2 P cores here but there must be a market for it. The numbers are stacking up on themselves at the low end, creating needless confusion, they should have held on to Pentium/Celeron names, or might as well give them some differentiation besides Nxxx and xxx.
    This is faster than anything N series single threaded and should only be beaten by the 8 core models in multi. These also have much more connectivity than the N series so there are clear advantages. Basically the only things the N series is better at is power usage and IGP though they only have single channel bandwidth to feed it.
    Reply