Intel Core i3-3250T vs Intel Core i3-7100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, narrow advantage for the Intel Core i3-7100 across every shared benchmark test. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the i3-7100 scores 232 against 226 for the i3-3250T, a 2.7% delta. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i3-7100 posts 970 versus 945, a 2.6% margin. The single-core results follow suit: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-7100 scores 136, the i3-3250T scores 133, a 2.3% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the i3-7100 at 2310 against 2252, again 2.6% ahead, while the R23 single-core test lands at 326 versus 318, a 2.5% spread.

Notably, the i3-3250T did not record scores for Geekbench tests in the database, while the i3-7100 has Geekbench multi-core and single-core figures of 1501 and 722 respectively. The head-to-head table therefore covers five tests, all won by the i3-7100: winsA equals 5, winsB equals 0. The largest single margin is the Cinebench R15 multi-core delta of 2.7%, the smallest is the R20 single-core delta of 2.3%. There is no test where the i3-3250T closes the gap to near parity; every delta sits between roughly 2.3% and 2.7%, a tight but consistent band.

Looking at the broader database context, both processors occupy the same 21st percentile among all CPUs. The i3-7100 has an average benchmark score of 781, while the i3-3250T averages 775. The nearest rivals for the i3-7100 include the AMD A10-5800K at 778 (0.4% behind), the Intel Pentium G4520 at 778 (0.4% behind), the AMD Athlon X4 760K at 777 (0.6% behind), and the Intel Pentium Silver J5005 at 776 (0.7% behind). For the i3-3250T, the nearest rivals are the Intel Celeron G5920 at 775 (0% delta), the Intel Pentium Silver J5005 at 776 (0.1% ahead), the AMD Athlon X4 760K at 777 (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Core i7-3687U at 773 (0.3% behind). These proximity figures indicate that the 6-point average score difference between the two i3 parts is meaningful only within a very crowded performance band, where many chips sit within 1% of each other.

The Verdict

From the recorded data alone, the Intel Core i3-7100 is the faster processor in every measured metric. Its five benchmark wins are all by margins of at least 2.3%, and the average benchmark score (781) exceeds that of the i3-3250T (775) by roughly 0.8%. The i3-7100 also holds a production status of Active, while the i3-3250T is listed as End-of-life, which matters for anyone seeking current availability. The i3-3250T's only advantage in the database is a lower TDP: 35 watts versus 51 watts. For a user prioritizing thermal headroom or low power draw, the i3-3250T has that single point in its favor, but it gives up measurable performance in every shared test to gain it.

The percentile ranking ties both at 21, meaning they sit at essentially the same performance tier relative to all CPUs. The i3-7100 does not leapfrog the i3-3250T into a higher percentile; it simply sits at the top of that tier. The data does not support a conclusion that the i3-3250T is obsolete or unusable: its scores (226 in R15 multi-core, 945 in R20 multi-core, 2252 in R23 multi-core) are close enough that a user with an existing Socket 1155 platform might see no reason to switch solely on performance grounds. However, for a new build, the i3-7100's active status and consistent lead make it the rational choice from the database's perspective.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Core i3-7100 wins all five recorded head-to-head tests. The i3-3250T wins none.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any single test?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the i3-7100 leads by 2.7% (232 vs 226).

Q: Do both processors share the same percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: Yes, both are at the 21st percentile, despite the i3-7100 having a higher average benchmark score (781 vs 775).

Q: Does the i3-3250T have any advantage in power consumption?

A: Yes, the i3-3250T has a TDP of 35 watts, while the i3-7100 has a TDP of 51 watts.

Q: Which processor has a lower average benchmark score?

A: The i3-3250T has the lower average score at 775, compared to 781 for the i3-7100.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the i3-3250T did not record a score?

A: Yes, the database lists Geekbench single-core and multi-core scores only for the i3-7100 (722 and 1501 respectively); no Geekbench results are recorded for the i3-3250T.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several specification fields. The i3-7100 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz, while the i3-3250T runs at 3.00 GHz. TDP differs: the i3-7100 is rated at 51 watts, the i3-3250T at 35 watts. The sockets are incompatible: the i3-7100 uses Intel Socket 1151, the i3-3250T uses Intel Socket 1155. Memory support differs, with the i3-7100 supporting DDR4 and the i3-3250T supporting DDR3. Memory bandwidth is higher on the i3-7100 at 38.4 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s for the i3-3250T. The integrated graphics are different: the i3-7100 has Intel HD 630, the i3-3250T has Intel HD 2500. Production status differs: the i3-7100 is Active, the i3-3250T is End-of-life. The part numbers differ (SR35C for the i3-7100, SR0YW for the i3-3250T). The i3-3250T has a die size of 94 mm², while the i3-7100 has no die size listed in the database. Release dates differ as well, though the specific dates are not discussed here. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear: the i3-7100 is built on Kaby Lake, the i3-3250T on Ivy Bridge. The process nodes differ, with the i3-7100 at 14 nm and the i3-3250T at 22 nm. Both have 2 cores and 4 threads, and both share the same cache layout: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3. The foundry for both is Intel. The i3-3250T has a listed die size of 94 mm², while the i3-7100 does not have a die size field in the database. The generation labels also differ: the i3-7100 is listed under "Core i3 (Kaby Lake)", the i3-3250T under "Core i3 (Ivy Bridge)". Both support PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), and neither supports ECC memory. The i3-7100's integrated graphics (HD 630) is a later generation than the i3-3250T's HD 2500. The memory bus is dual-channel for both, but the i3-7100 runs DDR4 while the i3-3250T runs DDR3, which directly explains the bandwidth difference (38.4 GB/s vs 25.6 GB/s).

Where Each One Wins

The i3-7100 wins in every benchmark category where both have recorded scores: multi-core and single-core Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. Its Geekbench scores (722 single-core, 1501 multi-core) provide additional data points that the i3-3250T simply lacks in the database. The i3-7100 also wins on memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s vs 25.6 GB/s), which can benefit any workload that saturates memory transfers. For users on a modern platform, the Socket 1151 interface and DDR4 support are practical wins. The i3-7100's active production status means it remains available, while the i3-3250T is end-of-life; this is a deciding factor for new system builds.

The i3-3250T wins in exactly one measurable field: TDP. At 35 watts, it consumes 16 watts less than the i3-7100's 51 watts. For a compact desktop, a passively cooled system, or a build where power draw is paramount, that 35-watt rating is the sole reason to select the older part. The i3-3250T also retains the same 21st percentile ranking as the i3-7100, so it does not fall into a lower performance class in the database's view. Its performance deltas are small enough that a user already owning a Socket 1155 board and DDR3 memory might find the i3-3250T adequate, though the data still shows it behind in every shared test. The i3-3250T's smaller die size (94 mm²) is a production detail, not a user-facing advantage. In summary, the i3-7100 wins on performance, memory architecture, and availability; the i3-3250T wins only on power consumption.