CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-8300 and Intel Core i3-1115G4E are both quad-threaded processors, but they target entirely different segments: the i3-8300 is a 62W desktop chip built on the older Coffee Lake architecture, while the i3-1115G4E is a 15W mobile part using the newer Tiger Lake design. Benchmark data shows the desktop chip wins every head-to-head test by roughly 20%, yet both processors land at the 39th percentile among all CPUs, indicating that despite the architectural gap, their overall performance tiers are nearly identical. The i3-8300 achieves a 20.6% lead in Cinebench R15 multicore, and the i3-1115G4E counters with a far lower power envelope and a higher boost clock, making the choice dependent on whether raw compute or mobility and efficiency is the priority.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multicore score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i3-8300 scores 5408 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Intel Core i3-1115G4E scores 4493, giving the i3-8300 a 20.4% advantage.

Q: How does the single-core performance compare between the two?

A: The i3-8300 wins all single-core tests, with a 20.6% lead in Cinebench R15 (76 vs 63) and a 20.3% lead in Cinebench R20 (320 vs 266) and R23 (763 vs 634).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The i3-8300 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the i3-1115G4E has 2 cores and 4 threads, meaning the latter relies on hyper-threading to match thread count.

Q: Which chip has a smaller process node?

A: The i3-1115G4E is built on a 10 nm process node, whereas the i3-8300 uses a 14 nm node, giving the mobile chip a manufacturing advantage.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No, the i3-8300 supports ECC memory, while the i3-1115G4E does not.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The i3-8300 has an average benchmark score of 1564, and the i3-1115G4E has 1559, a difference of only 5 points, placing them in the same performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The core architectural split is stark: the i3-8300 uses Coffee Lake on a 14 nm process with a die size of 126 mm², while the i3-1115G4E uses Tiger Lake-U on a 10 nm node with a larger 144 mm² die. The i3-8300 features 4 physical cores without hyper-threading, giving it 4 threads, whereas the i3-1115G4E packs only 2 physical cores but uses hyper-threading to reach 4 threads. Cache layouts differ significantly: the i3-8300 allocates 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3, while the i3-1115G4E provides 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with a smaller 6 MB shared L3 cache. The i3-1115G4E compensates with a higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz against the i3-8300’s fixed 3.70 GHz base clock (no boost listed). Memory support also diverges: the i3-8300 supports only DDR4 with dual-channel and a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the i3-1115G4E supports both DDR4 and LPDDR4X, though no bandwidth figure is available for it. PCIe connectivity differs as well, with the i3-8300 offering Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only) versus the i3-1115G4E’s Gen 4 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are distinct: UHD Graphics 630 on the desktop chip versus UHD Graphics G4 48EU on the mobile part. Production statuses reflect their lifecycle positions, with the i3-8300 marked as end-of-life and the i3-1115G4E as active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-8300 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with no victories for the i3-1115G4E. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-8300 scores 545 versus 452, a 20.6% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows the same 20.6% delta, with scores of 76 and 63. Moving to Cinebench R20, the i3-8300 leads by 20.3% in both multicore (2271 vs 1887) and single-core (320 vs 266). The R23 suite repeats the pattern: the i3-8300 wins multicore with 5408 against 4493 (20.4% delta) and single-core with 763 versus 634 (20.3% delta). Across all these tests, the deltaPct hovers tightly between 20.3% and 20.6%, indicating a consistent performance gap. The i3-1115G4E does have additional Geekbench results (2972 multicore, 1702 singlecore) that are not in the head-to-head set, but these cannot be compared directly to the i3-8300 since no corresponding data exists for the desktop chip. The average benchmark scores tell a different story: 1564 for the i3-8300 and 1559 for the i3-1115G4E, a negligible 0.3% difference, suggesting that across a broader benchmark suite, the two chips are effectively equivalent. The nearest rivals for the i3-8300 include the Intel Core i5-6600T (delta 0%), AMD Ryzen 3 1300X (delta 0.1%), and AMD Opteron 6276 (delta 0.3%), while the i3-1115G4E’s rivals include the AMD FX-8350 (delta 0.1%) and Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 (delta 0.1%). This places both chips in similar company, but the head-to-head Cinebench results consistently favor the desktop part.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Core i3-8300 is the superior processor for raw compute performance, winning every head-to-head benchmark by about 20%. Its 4 physical cores and higher base clock of 3.70 GHz outperform the i3-1115G4E’s 2 cores and 2.20 GHz base clock (with 3.90 GHz boost) in all Cinebench tests. The i3-8300 also offers ECC memory support and 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, making it more suitable for workstation or server-adjacent tasks. However, the i3-1115G4E is not without merit: its 15W TDP versus 62W means dramatically lower power consumption, and its 10 nm process node suggests better efficiency per watt. The i3-1115G4E also supports LPDDR4X memory and PCIe Gen 4, though with only 4 lanes. For users who need maximum processing power for desktop workloads, the i3-8300 is the clear choice. For those prioritizing portability, battery life, or low-power embedded designs, the i3-1115G4E’s active production status and modern node make it the practical option. The near-identical average benchmark scores (1564 vs 1559) and same 39th percentile ranking indicate that in real-world mixed workloads, the difference may be less pronounced than the Cinebench deltas suggest. Pick the i3-8300 for compute, the i3-1115G4E for efficiency.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 4 (i3-8300) vs 2 (i3-1115G4E)
• Base Clock: 3.70 GHz (i3-8300) vs 2.20 GHz (i3-1115G4E)
• Boost Clock: None listed (i3-8300) vs 3.90 GHz (i3-1115G4E)
• TDP: 62 W (i3-8300) vs 15 W (i3-1115G4E)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1151 (i3-8300) vs Intel BGA 1449 (i3-1115G4E)
• Architecture: Coffee Lake (i3-8300) vs Tiger Lake (i3-1115G4E)
• Process Node: 14 nm (i3-8300) vs 10 nm (i3-1115G4E)
• Die Size: 126 mm² (i3-8300) vs 144 mm² (i3-1115G4E)
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core (i3-8300) vs 80 KB per core (i3-1115G4E)
• L2 Cache: 256 KB per core (i3-8300) vs 1.25 MB per core (i3-1115G4E)
• L3 Cache: 8 MB shared (i3-8300) vs 6 MB shared (i3-1115G4E)
• Memory Support: DDR4 (i3-8300) vs DDR4, LPDDR4X (i3-1115G4E)
• Memory Bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s (i3-8300) vs None listed (i3-1115G4E)
• ECC Memory: True (i3-8300) vs False (i3-1115G4E)
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 Lanes (i3-8300) vs Gen 4, 4 Lanes (i3-1115G4E)
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics 630 (i3-8300) vs UHD Graphics G4 48EU (i3-1115G4E)
• Market Segment: Desktop (i3-8300) vs Mobile (i3-1115G4E)
• Production Status: End-of-life (i3-8300) vs Active (i3-1115G4E)
• Release Date: 2018-02-13 (i3-8300) vs 2020-09-01 (i3-1115G4E)
• Launch MSRP: $138 (i3-8300) vs $285 (i3-1115G4E)
• Part Number: SR3XY (i3-8300) vs SRK12 (i3-1115G4E)

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-8300 wins in every measured benchmark category: all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both multicore and single-core) show a 20.3% to 20.6% advantage. This makes it the definitive choice for compute-heavy desktop tasks such as rendering, compiling, or any workload that scales with multicore performance. Its 4 physical cores provide a structural advantage over the i3-1115G4E’s 2 cores, and its ECC memory support and 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes extend its utility to reliability-focused or expansion-heavy systems. The i3-8300 also has a higher average benchmark score (1564 vs 1559), though only marginally.

The Intel Core i3-1115G4E has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data, but it wins on efficiency and platform features. Its 15W TDP is a fraction of the i3-8300’s 62W, making it the obvious pick for battery-powered laptops, fanless designs, or compact embedded systems. The 10 nm process node and support for LPDDR4X memory indicate a more modern, power-optimized platform. The 3.90 GHz boost clock (versus no boost on the i3-8300) suggests better short-burst single-thread performance, even if the sustained Cinebench scores do not reflect it. The active production status and PCIe Gen 4 support (albeit with only 4 lanes) point to longer-term viability and newer connectivity standards. For any user constrained by power, heat, or form factor, the i3-1115G4E is the only reasonable choice despite its lower compute scores.