Intel Core i3-1000NG4 vs Intel Core i3-6100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a clear picture: the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 dominates the Intel Core i3-6100 in every recorded test. Across five head-to-head comparisons, the mobile Ice Lake chip wins all five, with the desktop Skylake part never taking a single victory.

The largest margins appear in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-1000NG4 scores 301 against the i3-6100's 224, a delta of 25.6%. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the mobile chip posts 1255 versus 934, again a 25.6% advantage. The newest rendering benchmark, Cinebench R23 multicore, shows the same story: 2989 for the i3-1000NG4, 2226 for the i3-6100, a 25.5% gap.

Single-core performance follows the same trajectory, though the absolute numbers are smaller. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-1000NG4 scores 177, while the i3-6100 manages 131, a 26% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 422 versus 314, a 25.6% margin. These nearly identical delta percentages across all five tests suggest the performance advantage is systemic, not workload-specific.

Interestingly, the i3-6100 has one benchmark the i3-1000NG4 lacks entirely: Geekbench results. The database records a Geekbench multicore score of 1605 and a single-core score of 785 for the i3-6100, but no corresponding Geekbench entries exist for the i3-1000NG4. That absence limits direct comparison in that particular test suite.

The average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story. The i3-6100 averages 888 across its recorded benchmarks, while the i3-1000NG4 averages 881. That puts the desktop part marginally ahead in aggregate, despite losing every head-to-head Cinebench contest. The reason is simple: the i3-6100's Geekbench scores, which are relatively strong for its class, boost its average. The i3-1000NG4 has no Geekbench data to offset its Cinebench results.

Percentile rankings reinforce the closeness of the overall picture. The i3-6100 sits at the 24th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the i3-1000NG4 sits at the 23rd percentile. That one-point gap is statistically negligible, and it reflects the fact that both chips occupy a similar tier despite their differing strengths.

The nearest rival data underscores this parity. The i3-6100's closest competitors include the Intel Xeon X5550 at an identical average score of 888 (0% delta), the Intel Pentium G4560T at 887 (0.1%), the AMD PRO A8-8650B at 887 (0.2%), and the Intel Core i7-860 at 886 (0.2%). For the i3-1000NG4, the field is similarly tight: the AMD Phenom II X6 1035T and AMD Athlon Silver 7120U both match its 881 average (0% delta), while the Intel Core i7-930 comes in at 882 (0.1% higher) and the AMD PRO A12-8870E at 880 (0.1% lower).

In short, the i3-1000NG4 wins every shared benchmark with margins between 25.5% and 26%, yet the overall average scores land within 1% of each other. That contradiction resolves when you consider the missing Geekbench results for the mobile chip. The data shows a clear winner in raw Cinebench performance, but a more balanced picture in aggregate.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 wins all five recorded head-to-head tests against the Intel Core i3-6100. The i3-6100 wins zero.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two chips?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i3-1000NG4 leads by 26%. All other head-to-head deltas fall between 25.5% and 25.6%.

Q: Does the i3-6100 have any benchmark advantage at all?

A: The i3-6100 has a higher average benchmark score at 888 versus 881 for the i3-1000NG4, and it sits one percentile higher (24th versus 23rd). It also has Geekbench scores (1605 multicore, 785 single-core) that the i3-1000NG4 lacks in the database.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The i3-1000NG4 scores 2989 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the i3-6100 scores 2226. That is a 25.5% advantage for the mobile part.

Q: Are there any rival CPUs that match either chip's average score?

A: Yes. The Intel Xeon X5550 matches the i3-6100's average of 888 exactly (0% delta). The AMD Phenom II X6 1035T and AMD Athlon Silver 7120U both match the i3-1000NG4's average of 881 (0% delta).

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 2 cores and 4 threads. They also both lack ECC memory support and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architectural generations built on different process nodes. The i3-6100 uses Skylake architecture on Intel's 14 nm process, with a die size of 150 mm² and 1,400 million transistors. The i3-1000NG4 uses Ice Lake architecture, specifically the Sunny Cove-Y variant, on Intel's 10 nm process, with a smaller die size of 123 mm². The database does not list a transistor count for the Ice Lake chip, so a direct transistor comparison is not possible.

Cache hierarchies differ in the L1 tier. The i3-6100 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, while the i3-1000NG4 provides 80 KB per core. Both share the same L2 allocation at 256 KB per core and the same L3 pool at 4 MB shared. The larger L1 cache on the Ice Lake part likely contributes to its single-core performance advantage, though the recorded data does not isolate that effect.

The integrated graphics also differ substantially. The i3-6100 carries Intel HD 530, while the i3-1000NG4 carries Iris Plus with 48 execution units. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so the practical impact of this difference is not quantified here.

The PCIe implementations vary as well. The i3-6100 lists PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the i3-1000NG4 lists only PCIe Gen 3 without a lane count. Both support DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration, though the i3-6100 records a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s while the i3-1000NG4 has no bandwidth figure in the database.

Production status differs sharply. The i3-6100 is listed as active production, while the i3-1000NG4 is marked end-of-life. The desktop chip launched on August 31, 2015, while the mobile chip launched on March 17, 2020, a gap of roughly four and a half years that explains the architectural leap.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification gap is thermal design power. The i3-6100 has a TDP of 51 watts, while the i3-1000NG4 draws only 9 watts. That 42-watt difference reflects the mobile versus desktop positioning of the two parts and is the single largest specification divergence.

Clock speeds tell a more complex story. The i3-6100 runs a base clock of 3.70 GHz with no boost clock listed. The i3-1000NG4 has a base clock of 1100.00 MHz (1.10 GHz) and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The desktop chip's fixed high clock contrasts with the mobile chip's low base and substantial boost headroom.

Sockets and form factors differ entirely. The i3-6100 uses Intel Socket 1151 and targets the desktop market segment. The i3-1000NG4 uses Intel BGA 1044 and targets the mobile segment. These are physically incompatible platforms.

Memory bandwidth is another differentiating field. The i3-6100 records 34.1 GB/s, while the i3-1000NG4 has no bandwidth figure listed. Both support dual-channel DDR4 and neither supports ECC.

Part numbers and release dates differ as expected. The i3-6100 carries part number SR2HG and released on August 31, 2015. The i3-1000NG4 carries SRGM9 and released on March 17, 2020. Neither chip has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Both chips share several specifications: 2 cores, 4 threads, 4 MB shared L3 cache, dual-channel DDR4 memory support, no ECC, no unlocked multiplier, and 256 KB L2 per core. Their L1 cache differs (64 KB versus 80 KB per core), as do die size (150 mm² versus 123 mm²) and process node (14 nm versus 10 nm).

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward split based on use case. For anyone running Cinebench-class workloads, the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 is the clear choice. It wins every shared benchmark with margins between 25.5% and 26%, and it does so while consuming 9 watts versus 51 watts for the i3-6100. The mobile chip delivers dramatically better performance per watt on paper, and its 10 nm process and Sunny Cove architecture are newer by roughly four and a half years.

However, the i3-1000NG4 is end-of-life and soldered via BGA 1044, which means it is not a drop-in upgrade path for desktop builders. The i3-6100, by contrast, is still in active production and fits the widely available Socket 1151 platform. For users with an existing LGA 1151 motherboard, the i3-6100 offers a simple, supported upgrade option.

The average benchmark scores complicate a simple "winner" narrative. The i3-6100 edges out the i3-1000NG4 in aggregate at 888 versus 881, and it holds a one-point percentile advantage at 24th versus 23rd. Those figures reflect the i3-6100's Geekbench results, which are absent for the i3-1000NG4. If the mobile chip had Geekbench data, its average could shift either way.

The nearest rival data shows both chips are well-matched against their peers. The i3-6100 trades blows with the Xeon X5550, Pentium G4560T, PRO A8-8650B, and Core i7-860, all within 0.2% of its average score. The i3-1000NG4 similarly sits within 0.1% of the Phenom II X6 1035T, Athlon Silver 7120U, Core i7-930, and PRO A12-8870E.

For a mobile or low-power system, the i3-1000NG4 is the superior silicon. Its Cinebench performance is decisively ahead, its TDP is 42 watts lower, and its integrated Iris Plus graphics outclass the HD 530 on paper. For a desktop build on Socket 1151, the i3-6100 remains a viable, active part with a higher average score in the database and strong Geekbench numbers.

The verdict hinges on platform and workload. Benchmark-driven buyers who can use the i3-1000NG4's form factor should pick it without hesitation. Those locked into a desktop socket or reliant on Geekbench metrics will find the i3-6100 more compelling. The data does not declare a universal winner, but it does make the tradeoffs explicit: the i3-1000NG4 wins every shared performance test, while the i3-6100 wins on aggregate score, availability, and platform flexibility.