Intel Core i3-3110M

The Intel Core i3-3110M is a dual-core mobile processor from the Ivy Bridge generation, built on Intel's 22 nm process. It sits in a performance class where its average benchmark score of 517 places it at the 9th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms only a small fraction of the processor landscape. This is a part designed for basic mobile computing, and the data reflects that positioning clearly.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The benchmark data reveals a pronounced gap between single-thread and multi-thread performance, a common trait for a dual-core part with Hyper-Threading. In Cinebench R23, the chip scores 198 points in single-core and 1402 points in multi-core, yielding a multi-core advantage of roughly 7x. This indicates that the processor's two physical cores and four threads scale well when workloads are parallelized, but the absolute ceiling is low.

For real-world tasks, this split means the i3-3110M handles single-threaded applications—like older office suites, web browsing, or lightweight coding—without catastrophic failure, but it will not feel snappy. The Geekbench results corroborate this: a single-core score of 391 versus a multi-core score of 815 shows the multi-threaded gain is significant, but both numbers are low in absolute terms. In a dual-core part, the multi-thread advantage comes from the four threads, but each thread is still limited by the 2.40 GHz base clock.

The practical implication is that the CPU is better suited to batch tasks that can use all threads—like video encoding in a background queue—than to interactive single-thread-heavy workloads. A user running a modern spreadsheet with heavy formulas might see lag, while a script that processes files across all four threads will finish relatively faster, though still slowly compared to modern parts. The lack of a boost clock further limits single-thread responsiveness, as the processor cannot dynamically raise its frequency to handle a transient spike in demand.

Power and Thermals

The processor carries a 35 W TDP, which is a modest figure for a mobile chip. This implies that a simple, low-profile cooling solution is sufficient—likely a small fan and a basic heatpipe assembly. The 22 nm process node helps keep thermal output manageable, and the 118 mm² die size is small, which reduces the thermal mass that needs to be cooled.

For a laptop, a 35 W TDP means the system integrator does not need a large vapor chamber or a dual-fan setup. A thin-and-light chassis could theoretically accommodate this chip with a passive or semi-passive cooler, though sustained multi-thread loads would likely cause the fan to spin audibly. The absence of a boost clock is a thermal advantage: the chip never enters a high-power turbo state, so peak heat generation is predictable and capped.

The integrated graphics is the Intel HD 4000, which shares the same thermal envelope. Running both CPU and iGPU under load—for example, playing a lightweight game or decoding a video—will push the 35 W budget, but the chip should sustain its base clock without throttling if the cooler is adequate. The data does not include thermal throttling tests, but the conservative TDP and lack of turbo suggest that a capable air cooler, even a small one, is enough for sustained operation.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark suite shows a consistent pattern: the i3-3110M is a low-end performer in every test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 141 points, which is a very low result—modern desktop chips score in the thousands. The Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 588 and R23 multi-core score of 1402 confirm that this is not a processor for demanding rendering work. The single-core scores in R20 (83) and R23 (198) are equally modest, indicating that even light single-threaded tasks will not feel fast.

Geekbench results align with this: a multi-core score of 815 and a single-core score of 391. These are roughly comparable to a low-end desktop processor from the early 2010s. The average benchmark score of 517 is the aggregate figure used for comparison, and it places the chip at the 9th percentile, meaning 91% of tested CPUs are faster. The data shows no scenario where this chip punches above its class; it is consistently at the bottom of the performance distribution.

The multi-core versus single-core delta is worth noting. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 7.07 times the single-core score, which is a large ratio. This indicates that the two cores plus Hyper-Threading are well-utilized in multi-threaded workloads, but the per-core performance is so weak that the absolute multi-core result is still low. The chip is not inefficient at scaling; it is simply slow on a per-thread basis.

How It Compares

The nearest rivals, based on average benchmark score, are a mix of older desktop and mobile parts. The Intel Xeon L5408 is an exact match, with a 517 average score and a 0% deltaPct. This is a server-oriented chip, but in practical terms, the i3-3110M offers identical aggregate performance. Users moving from an old L5408 system to this laptop CPU would notice no change in raw throughput.

The AMD Phenom II X3 B75 is a triple-core desktop chip with an average score of 515, which is 0.3% slower than the i3-3110M. The delta is negligible, meaning the two are effectively tied in average performance. However, the Phenom has three physical cores versus the Intel's two, so multi-threaded scaling may differ, but the benchmark data shows the final result is nearly identical.

The AMD Phenom II X4 910 scores 519, which is 0.4% faster than the i3-3110M. This is also a negligible difference, but it represents the upper edge of this performance cluster. The Intel Celeron G1840 scores 520, making it 0.7% faster, the largest gap among the listed rivals. All four rivals are within 1% of the i3-3110M's average score, confirming that this chip sits in a tight performance band where architectural differences do not translate into meaningful benchmark deltas.

In practice, the i3-3110M is interchangeable with these rivals for most workloads. A user upgrading from a Phenom II X4 910 would see no performance improvement, and a user moving to a Celeron G1840 would see a marginal gain. The only differentiation is platform features—like the integrated HD 4000 graphics—but the raw CPU performance is statistically equivalent across this group.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of this processor?

A: The average benchmark score is 517, which places it at the 9th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How does it compare to the AMD Phenom II X4 910?

A: The Phenom II X4 910 has an average score of 519, which is 0.4% faster than the i3-3110M. The difference is negligible.

Q: What is the TDP of this chip?

A: The TDP is 35 W, indicating a low-power mobile design that requires only a basic cooling solution.

Q: Does it support multi-threading?

A: Yes, it has 2 cores and 4 threads, and the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 1402 is about 7x the single-core score of 198.

Q: What is the socket type?

A: The socket is Intel BGA 1023, meaning it is soldered to the motherboard and not upgradeable.

Q: What integrated graphics does it include?

A: It includes Intel HD 4000 graphics, which shares the thermal envelope with the CPU.

Who Should Consider It

This processor is for users who need a basic, functional laptop CPU for undemanding tasks. The single-core score of 391 in Geekbench and 198 in Cinebench R23 indicate that office productivity—word processing, email, and light spreadsheet work—will run, but without any headroom. The multi-core scores are similarly low, so batch photo editing or simple video transcoding is possible but slow.

Gamers should avoid this chip entirely. The integrated HD 4000 graphics and the low CPU scores cannot handle modern titles, and the lack of a dedicated GPU slot in most BGA 1023 laptops means there is no upgrade path. For creation workloads, the Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 588 suggests that even a modest 3D render will take a long time. Users who occasionally compile code or process large datasets will find the chip frustratingly slow.

The ideal user is someone running a legacy application that does not benefit from many cores, or a secondary laptop for web browsing and document editing. The 9th percentile ranking means that almost any modern processor, including entry-level ones, will outperform it. This chip is only appropriate if the laptop is free, extremely cheap, or has a specific form factor that cannot accommodate a more powerful processor. For any workload beyond basic browsing and typing, the data shows that better options exist at nearly every price point.