Intel Core i3-7100H vs Intel Core i3-8130U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent, though narrow, victory for the Intel Core i3-8130U across every recorded test. The 8130U wins all five head-to-head comparisons, but the margins are remarkably small, ranging from just 1.9% to 2.3%. This is a closer contest than the raw scores might suggest at first glance.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 8130U scores 301 against 295 for the 7100H, a 2% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 1257 for the 8130U versus 1231 for the 7100H, a 2.1% gap. Single-core performance in R20 also favors the 8130U, with 177 points to 173, a 2.3% lead. The R23 suite repeats the story: multi-core scores are 2995 for the 8130U against 2932, and single-core scores are 422 versus 414, representing 2.1% and 1.9% deltas respectively.

The 7100H does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head set. Its strongest relative showing is in R23 single-core, where the deficit narrows to 1.9%. The largest loss for the 7100H comes in R20 single-core, where it trails by 2.3%. For practical purposes, these differences are small enough that most users would not perceive a meaningful gap in everyday tasks.

The average benchmark score reinforces the near-parity. The 7100H posts an average of 1009, while the 8130U sits at 994. Interestingly, the 7100H has a slightly higher average despite losing every direct comparison. This is because the 8130U has additional Geekbench results in its benchmark set, which are not part of the head-to-head tests. The 8130U scores 1762 in Geekbench multi-core and 898 in single-core, data points that pull its overall average down relative to the 7100H.

Both processors land in the same percentile neighborhood. The 7100H sits at the 28th percentile of all CPUs, while the 8130U ranks at the 27th. Their nearest rivals confirm the positioning: the 7100H trades blows with the Intel Processor N100 (0.2% ahead), Intel Core i5-10210Y (0.3% ahead), and Intel Core i7-2675QM (0.3% behind). The 8130U similarly sits within 0.1% of the AMD Phenom II X6 1065T and Intel Xeon W3565.

Where Each One Wins

The 8130U wins every benchmark category, but the margins dictate a nuanced use-case split. For multi-threaded rendering workloads, the 8130U holds a slight edge. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it leads by 2%, and in R20 and R23 multi-core, the advantage holds at 2.1%. This suggests that for tasks like video encoding or 3D rendering, the 8130U will finish marginally faster, though the difference is unlikely to be noticeable without a stopwatch.

Single-core performance is where the 8130U shows its most consistent advantage. In R20 single-core, it leads by 2.3%, and in R23 single-core, by 1.9%. This matters for applications that rely on single-thread performance, such as older games, spreadsheet calculations, or lightly threaded productivity software. The 8130U also has a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, which explains its single-core superiority; the 7100H lists no boost clock, meaning it runs at its fixed 2.80 GHz base frequency.

The 7100H does not have a single benchmark win to point to. However, its higher 35 W TDP compared to the 15 W TDP of the 8130U suggests it is designed for sustained loads in thicker laptops with better cooling. The data does not show a thermal or power throttle test, so this is an inference from the specification differences rather than a measured result.

For users who prioritize the highest possible Cinebench scores, the 8130U is the pick. For users who value a processor that can maintain performance in a chassis with more robust cooling, the 7100H remains a viable option, but the benchmark data does not provide evidence of a performance advantage in any workload.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Kaby Lake architecture and are built on Intel's 14 nm process node. The core configurations are identical: 2 cores and 4 threads each. This means the fundamental execution engine, instruction set, and per-core capabilities are the same generation. The differences lie in how Intel configured and marketed each chip.

The 7100H belongs to the Kaby Lake-H family, the high-performance mobile variant. Its codename is Kaby Lake-H, and it is placed in the Core i3 generation labeled "Kaby Lake-H". The 8130U belongs to the Kaby Lake-U Refresh family, codenamed Kaby Lake-R, with the generation label "Kaby Lake-U Refresh". The "U" suffix indicates an ultra-low-power design, while "H" denotes high-performance mobile.

Cache allocation differs between the two. The 7100H has 3 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 8130U has 4 MB. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core. The extra 1 MB of L3 cache on the 8130U likely contributes to its slight performance edge in the Cinebench tests, as more cache can reduce memory latency for frequently accessed data.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The 7100H uses Intel HD Graphics 630, while the 8130U uses UHD 620. Both are integrated solutions without dedicated video memory, but the database does not include graphics benchmarks, so no performance comparison is possible from the recorded data.

The die sizes are close: 126 mm² for the 7100H and 123 mm² for the 8130U. Both are fabricated by Intel on the same 14 nm process. The production status differs, with the 7100H marked as end-of-life and the 8130U as active, indicating that the 8130U remains in production while the 7100H has been discontinued.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several specification fields. The base clock is higher on the 7100H at 2.80 GHz versus 2.40 GHz on the 8130U. However, the 8130U has a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, while the 7100H has no boost clock listed, meaning it operates at a fixed frequency. This explains why the 8130U wins single-core tests despite the lower base clock.

TDP is a major differentiator. The 7100H draws 35 W, while the 8130U is rated at 15 W. This is a 20 W difference, which affects cooling requirements, laptop size, and battery life. The 7100H will generate more heat and require a larger cooling solution, making it suitable for thicker gaming laptops or workstations. The 8130U can fit in slim ultrabooks with passive or low-profile cooling.

The socket differs: the 7100H uses Intel BGA 1440, while the 8130U uses Intel BGA 1356. These are not interchangeable, so upgrading between the two would require a motherboard change. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not possible.

Memory support shows a divergence. The 7100H supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, while the 8130U supports only DDR4. Both are dual-channel capable for the 7100H, but the memory bus field is not recorded for the 8130U. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

The PCIe configuration is listed only for the 7100H: Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The 8130U has no PCIe data recorded. The 7100H has a part number (SR32T), while the 8130U does not have one listed. The release dates differ: the 7100H launched in January 2017, and the 8130U in February 2018. The launch MSRP for the 7100H is $225; the 8130U has no MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The 8130U is faster in every recorded multi-core test. It scores 301 versus 295 in Cinebench R15, 1257 versus 1231 in R20, and 2995 versus 2932 in R23. The margins are all about 2%.

Q: Does the higher TDP of the 7100H translate to better performance?

A: No. Despite the 35 W TDP of the 7100H versus 15 W for the 8130U, the 8130U wins all five head-to-head benchmarks. The higher TDP does not appear in the benchmark data as a performance advantage.

Q: What explains the 8130U's single-core lead?

A: The 8130U has a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, while the 7100H has no boost clock listed and runs at 2.80 GHz. The higher maximum frequency allows the 8130U to pull ahead in single-core Cinebench tests by 1.9% to 2.3%.

Q: Can these processors be swapped between laptops?

A: No. The 7100H uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket, and the 8130U uses the Intel BGA 1356 socket. They are physically incompatible, and both are soldered to the motherboard.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The 8130U has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 7100H has 3 MB. Both have identical L1 and L2 cache per core at 64 KB and 256 KB respectively.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: The 7100H is marked as end-of-life, while the 8130U is listed as active. The 8130U remains available for new designs; the 7100H has been discontinued.

The Verdict

The data makes a clear, if narrow, recommendation for the Intel Core i3-8130U. It wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, from Cinebench R15 multi-core to R23 single-core, with margins between 1.9% and 2.3%. For users who need the best possible Cinebench scores in a mobile processor, the 8130U is the superior choice.

The 8130U also offers practical advantages beyond raw performance. Its 15 W TDP makes it far easier to cool in a slim laptop, and its active production status means it remains available for new systems. The 4 MB of L3 cache provides a slight memory hierarchy advantage, and the boost clock of 3.40 GHz gives it headroom for burst workloads.

The 7100H is not without merit. Its 2.80 GHz base clock is higher than the 8130U's 2.40 GHz, which could translate to more consistent performance in sustained loads if the cooling allows. It also supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, offering flexibility for older system designs. The 35 W TDP suggests Intel intended it for higher-performance chassis, and its launch MSRP of $225 positions it as a premium part.

However, the benchmark data does not show a single test where the 7100H outperforms the 8130U. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the 7100H at 1009 and the 8130U at 994, but this is skewed by the additional Geekbench results on the 8130U. In the direct comparisons, the 8130U is consistently ahead.

For a new laptop purchase, the 8130U is the better choice. It is faster, more efficient, and still in production. For a user with an existing 7100H system, there is no performance reason to upgrade, as the gains are minimal. The 8130U wins this matchup, but the victory is measured in single-digit percentages, not a generational leap.