Intel Core i3-7100H vs Intel Core i5-2300 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-2300 and Intel Core i3-7100H are separated by six years of silicon evolution, yet their benchmark results are remarkably close. The i5-2300, a desktop quad-core from the Sandy Bridge era, wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, but by margins of less than 1% in every case. The i3-7100H, a mobile dual-core with Hyper-Threading from Kaby Lake, counters with a dramatically lower 35W TDP, a smaller 126 mm² die, and support for both DDR3 and DDR4 memory. For a desktop user with a 95W power budget, the i5-2300 is the marginally faster performer; for a mobile or compact system, the i3-7100H is the only logical choice.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i5-2300 wins with a score of 2947, edging out the Intel Core i3-7100H’s 2932. The delta is only 0.5%.

Q: Do these two processors have the same number of cores?

A: No. The i5-2300 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, while the i3-7100H has 2 physical cores and 4 threads due to Hyper-Threading.

Q: Can the i3-7100H use the same memory as the i5-2300?

A: Yes, both support DDR3. However, the i3-7100H also supports DDR4, giving it broader memory compatibility.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between them?

A: The i5-2300 has an average benchmark score of 1014, while the i3-7100H scores 1009. The i5-2300 leads by 0.5%.

Q: Which chip has a higher power draw?

A: The Intel Core i5-2300 has a TDP of 95W, compared to the i3-7100H’s 35W. The i3-7100H is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life (EOL) products.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent opposite ends of Intel’s design philosophy over a six-year span. The i5-2300 is built on the Sandy Bridge architecture using a 32 nm process node, featuring 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. It is a desktop part with 4 physical cores and no Hyper-Threading, yielding 4 threads. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a 6 MB shared L3 cache.

The i3-7100H uses the Kaby Lake architecture (specifically Kaby Lake-H) on a 14 nm process node. Intel does not list its transistor count, but its die size is substantially smaller at 126 mm². It is a mobile part with 2 physical cores and Hyper-Threading, providing 4 threads. Its cache is halved in the L3 department, offering only 3 MB shared, though L1 and L2 remain the same per-core sizes at 64 KB and 256 KB respectively.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i5-2300 pairs with Intel HD 2000, while the i3-7100H features the more modern Intel HD Graphics 630. Memory support also diverges: the i5-2300 is limited to DDR3, whereas the i3-7100H supports both DDR3 and DDR4. Both use a dual-channel memory bus and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and both lack ECC memory support. The i5-2300 uses an Intel Socket 1155, while the i3-7100H is soldered to an Intel BGA 1440 package.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow verdict. The Intel Core i5-2300 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all 5 wins with deltas ranging from 0.3% to 0.6%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 296 versus 295; in R20 multi-core, 1237 versus 1231; in R20 single-core, 174 versus 173; in R23 multi-core, 2947 versus 2932; and in R23 single-core, 416 versus 414.

However, the practical significance of these wins is minimal. A 0.5% lead in R23 multi-core means the i5-2300 is functionally identical to the i3-7100H in rendering workloads. The i5-2300’s advantage comes from having double the physical cores (4 vs 2), but the i3-7100H’s higher IPC from the Kaby Lake architecture and its Hyper-Threading compensate for the deficit.

The deciding factor is not performance but platform. The i5-2300 is a desktop chip with a 95W TDP, requiring a Socket 1155 motherboard and a dedicated cooling solution. The i3-7100H is a mobile chip with a 35W TDP, built for BGA 1440 laptops or compact systems. If you have a desktop motherboard, the i5-2300 is the slightly faster choice. If you need low power consumption or a mobile form factor, the i3-7100H is the only option that fits. The i3-7100H also carries a launch MSRP of $225, though neither chip is still in production.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every physical and architectural specification except for base clock speed and thread count. The table below highlights the fields where they diverge:

| Specification | Intel Core i5-2300 | Intel Core i3-7100H |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Boost Clock | 3.10 GHz | None |

| TDP | 95W | 35W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1155 | Intel BGA 1440 |

| Architecture | Sandy Bridge | Kaby Lake |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 1,160 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 216 mm² | 126 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 3 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR3, DDR4 |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 2000 | Intel HD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2011-01-08 | 2017-01-02 |

| Part Number | SR00D | SR32T |

Both chips share a base clock of 2.80 GHz, 4 threads, dual-channel memory bus, PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and lack ECC support and unlocked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unusually close across the board. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-2300 scores 296 against the i3-7100H’s 295, a 0.3% win. This establishes the pattern: the i5-2300 leads, but barely.

Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i5-2300 scores 1237, while the i3-7100H scores 1231. The 0.5% delta is consistent with the R15 result. In R20 single-core, the i5-2300 wins 174 to 173, a 0.6% margin — its largest lead in any test.

The Cinebench R23 suite shows the same story. In multi-core, the i5-2300 scores 2947 versus 2932, a 0.5% win. In single-core, the i5-2300 scores 416 versus 414, another 0.5% margin. The i5-2300’s wins are consistent but never decisive.

The average benchmark scores mirror this trend. The i5-2300 posts an average of 1014, while the i3-7100H averages 1009. The i5-2300’s nearest rival in its own list is the Intel Core i3-4160, which scores 1017 and beats it by 0.3%. The i3-7100H’s closest competitor is the Intel Processor N100, which scores 1007 and trails it by 0.2%. Both chips sit at the 28th percentile of all CPUs, indicating that neither is a high-performance part by modern standards, but they remain competitive with each other.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-2300 wins in every benchmark category measured. It is the better choice for multi-threaded rendering tasks, as evidenced by its 0.3% lead in R15 multi-core, 0.5% lead in R20 multi-core, and 0.5% lead in R23 multi-core. It also wins in single-threaded tests, taking R20 single-core by 0.6% and R23 single-core by 0.5%. Its 4 physical cores provide a structural advantage in workloads that scale with core count, even if the benchmark deltas are small.

The Intel Core i3-7100H wins where benchmarks do not measure: power consumption and platform flexibility. Its 35W TDP is less than half of the i5-2300’s 95W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops or passively cooled systems. It supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, offering upgrade flexibility that the i5-2300 lacks. Its HD Graphics 630 is a generation newer than the HD 2000 in the i5-2300, which may matter for basic media acceleration. The i3-7100H also has a smaller die (126 mm² vs 216 mm²) and a more advanced 14 nm process, which contributes to its efficiency.

In practical terms, if you are building a desktop with a Socket 1155 board, the i5-2300 is the pick — it wins all five head-to-head tests. If you are choosing a mobile platform that requires a BGA 1440 socket, the i3-7100H is the only viable option, and its performance is nearly identical to the i5-2300 despite using half the power. The data shows no scenario where the i3-7100H outperforms the i5-2300 in raw compute, but the i3-7100H’s efficiency and memory support make it the superior engineering choice for portable systems.