CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-9320 and Intel Core i3-9100 are two quad-core Coffee Lake desktop processors that occupy nearly the same position in the performance hierarchy, yet the benchmark data reveals a consistent and measurable gap between them. In the head-to-head comparisons, the i3-9320 wins all six tests, with deltas ranging from 11.1% to 11.4% over the i3-9100. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the i3-9320 scores 88 against 79, a 11.4% advantage. The multi-core results follow a similar pattern: Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 630 versus 566 (11.3% ahead), while Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 2626 versus 2361 (11.2% ahead). The narrowest single-test delta is 11.1% in Cinebench R20 single-core, with scores of 370 and 333 respectively.

The overall average benchmark scores confirm this positioning, with the i3-9320 averaging 1808 and the i3-9100 averaging 1806. That difference of just 2 points translates to a 0.1% delta in the nearest-rival data, meaning the two chips are effectively tied in aggregate performance despite the consistent per-test wins for the i3-9320. The i3-9320 sits at the 42nd percentile of all CPUs, and the i3-9100 also sits at the 42nd percentile, reinforcing that neither processor dramatically changes the overall performance envelope. In the nearest-rivals list, the i3-9320 is 0.1% ahead of the i3-9100, while the i3-9100 is 0.1% behind the i3-9320. Both are closely bracketed by the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U (average 1810) and the Intel Core i5-6600K (average 1816), with the i3-9320 trailing the i5-6600K by 0.4% and the i3-9100 trailing it by 0.5%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite provides the full set of comparative data, and the results are unambiguous: the i3-9320 leads in every single test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-9320 posts 630 points against 566 for the i3-9100, a 11.3% improvement. The single-core R15 test shows 88 versus 79, a 11.4% gap that represents the largest relative difference in the entire comparison. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 2626 for the i3-9320 and 2361 for the i3-9100, a 11.2% delta, while the single-core scores are 370 and 333, also an 11.1% delta. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core result is 6254 against 5622, and the single-core result is 882 against 793, both showing 11.2% advantages for the i3-9320.

The uniformity of these deltas, hovering between 11.1% and 11.4%, suggests a fixed architectural or clock-speed advantage rather than workload-specific behavior. No test favors the i3-9100; its wins column is empty at zero. The i3-9320’s six wins all come with double-digit percentage margins, making the performance relationship straightforward: the i3-9320 is consistently faster by roughly 11% across both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench workloads. However, the aggregate average score tells a slightly different story. The i3-9320’s average of 1808 is only 0.1% above the i3-9100’s 1806, because the two chips share the same percentile ranking and the benchmark pool includes other tests where the gap may be smaller or non-existent. For instance, the i3-9100 has Geekbench scores (3403 multi-core, 1290 single-core) that are not listed for the i3-9320, so the average is computed over different test sets, diluting the head-to-head margins.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Coffee Lake architecture, use the 14 nm process node, and come from the same Coffee Lake Refresh generation. They share the same Intel Socket 1151, the same dual-channel DDR4 memory support with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and the same 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are identical, UHD Graphics 630, and both support ECC memory. The die size is also the same at 126 mm², and both have 4 cores and 4 threads. The core counts, thread counts, and basic topology are identical, so the performance difference cannot be attributed to parallel execution resources.

The key architectural difference lies in the cache hierarchy and clock speeds. The i3-9320 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-9100 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, a 2 MB difference that can affect data residency and reduce memory latency in cache-sensitive workloads. The L1 and L2 caches are identical at 64 KB per core and 256 KB per core respectively. Clock speeds also differ: the i3-9320 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, whereas the i3-9100 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The i3-9320’s 0.10 GHz higher base clock and 0.20 GHz higher boost clock directly contribute to its faster single-core performance, and the larger L3 cache likely helps in multi-core scenarios where shared data is accessed frequently. The TDP figures are close but not identical: the i3-9320 is rated at 62 watts, while the i3-9100 is rated at 65 watts, meaning the higher-clocked part actually consumes slightly less power according to the specification. Both processors have locked multipliers, so overclocking is not an option for either.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i3-9320 has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, while the Intel Core i3-9100 has a boost clock of 4.20 GHz.

Q: How much larger is the L3 cache on the i3-9320?

A: The i3-9320 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-9100 has 6 MB, a difference of 2 MB.

Q: Are both processors compatible with the same motherboard socket?

A: Yes, both use Intel Socket 1151 and are built on the Coffee Lake architecture, so they fit the same socket type.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The i3-9320 has an average benchmark score of 1808, and the i3-9100 has an average score of 1806, a difference of 0.1%.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Both the i3-9320 and the i3-9100 support ECC memory, as listed in the specification data.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i3-9320 wins with a score of 6254, compared to 5622 for the i3-9100, a 11.2% advantage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several specification fields, though many core attributes are shared. The base clock is 3.70 GHz for the i3-9320 versus 3.60 GHz for the i3-9100. The boost clock is 4.40 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. The L3 cache is 8 MB shared on the i3-9320 versus 6 MB shared on the i3-9100. The TDP is 62 watts for the i3-9320 and 65 watts for the i3-9100. The release dates differ: the i3-9320 launched on 2019-04-22, while the i3-9100 launched earlier on 2018-08-31. The launch MSRP also differs, with the i3-9320 listed at $154 and the i3-9100 at $122. The part numbers are distinct as well: SRF7X for the i3-9320 and SRCZV for the i3-9100. All other fields, cores (4), threads (4), L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (256 KB per core), memory support (DDR4), memory bus (Dual-channel), memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s), ECC support (true), PCIe lanes (Gen 3, 16 Lanes from CPU), integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), socket (Intel Socket 1151), process node (14 nm), die size (126 mm²), and multiplier unlocked status (false), are identical between the two.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-9320 wins in every benchmark category where both have data. In Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core, it leads by 11.3% and 11.4% respectively. In Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core, it leads by 11.2% and 11.1%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core and single-core, it leads by 11.2% in both. The i3-9100 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head comparison, so there is no test in the provided data where it outperforms the i3-9320. However, the i3-9100 does have Geekbench scores (3403 multi-core, 1290 single-core) that are not present for the i3-9320, which means for users running Geekbench, the i3-9100 has a documented result while the i3-9320 does not. In terms of use cases, the i3-9320 is the stronger choice for Cinebench-style rendering workloads, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, because its higher clock speeds and larger L3 cache yield consistent double-digit gains. The i3-9100, by contrast, offers no performance advantage in the tested benchmarks, but its lower TDP of 65 watts versus 62 watts is actually higher, so it does not even win on power efficiency as specified. The i3-9100 does have the advantage of an earlier release date and a lower launch MSRP, which may matter for procurement timelines or initial acquisition cost, but the performance data shows no scenario where the i3-9100 comes out ahead.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Core i3-9320 is the superior processor in every measured test. It wins all six Cinebench comparisons with margins between 11.1% and 11.4%, and its average benchmark score of 1808 edges out the i3-9100’s 1806. The i3-9320 achieves this with a higher base clock (3.70 GHz versus 3.60 GHz), a higher boost clock (4.40 GHz versus 4.20 GHz), and a larger L3 cache (8 MB versus 6 MB), while also carrying a lower TDP (62 watts versus 65 watts). The only specification where the i3-9100 has a clear advantage is the launch MSRP of $122 versus $154, and the earlier release date. For users who prioritize raw processing performance in Cinebench workloads, the i3-9320 is the clear pick. For users who value the lower initial price point or who need a processor with a documented Geekbench score, the i3-9100 may be considered, but the performance data provides no reason to expect it to outperform the i3-9320 in any computational task. The verdict is straightforward: the i3-9320 wins on performance across the board, and the i3-9100 only offers a cost-based alternative that sacrifices 11% performance in the tested benchmarks.