Intel is prepping a new dual-core CPU with surprisingly decent performance

[DragonSlayer101]

The big picture: Intel may have long discontinued its Pentium and Celeron processor lineups, but the company still caters to the entry-level market with the affordable "Intel Processor" series. Last year, Intel launched the Intel Processor 300 dual-core CPU and is now seemingly preparing its successor – the Intel Processor 310.

The new CPU was spotted on Geekbench with two cores and four threads. Both cores are Performance Cores based on the Raptor Cove architecture, but the chip doesn't have any Efficient Cores, unlike its other Raptor Lake siblings. The rest of the specs are similar to those of the Intel 300, with the only real change being a slightly faster base clock.

According to the Geekbench listing, the Intel 310 has a 4.09 GHz base frequency compared to the 3.90 GHz base clock of the Intel 300. Other notable specs include 6 MB of L3 cache and 2.5 MB of L2 cache, both of which are identical to those of the 300. The listing also reveals that the CPU is designed for the LGA 1700 socket, like the rest of the Raptor Lake lineup.

The Intel 310 was tested on a system based on the Gigabyte H610M K DDR4 motherboard with 8 GB of DDR4-3200 memory in single-channel mode and running Windows 10 Pro. The listing doesn't reveal the TDP of the new chip, but it could have a 46W power rating, just like the 300.

The Intel 310 scored 2,152 points in the single-core test and 4,254 points in the multi-core benchmark, which is underwhelming for 2024. However, these scores are still significantly better than Intel's N-series processors like the dual-core N50 and the quad-core N97. In fact, the scores are also higher than those of the four-core, eight-thread Core i3-10100, suggesting that the new processor may not be a complete dud.

The Intel Processor 310 may not look appealing to DIY enthusiasts or hardcore gamers, but it's not designed for them anyway. It is probably meant for embedded systems that require nothing more than a basic chip without any multi-tasking requirements or high-end 4K editing or 3D modeling workloads. As long as it's priced sensibly, it could still find a niche in today's PC market.

Permalink to story:

Intel is prepping a new dual-core CPU with surprisingly decent performance

 

[GeforcerFX]

The intel 300 isn't price competitive at all, they sell for $105, you can get 12th gen i3's for the same price or cheaper and your getting twice the CPU. Then you have AMD with 6c12t ryzen 5 AM4 chips at the same price. The only way these chips are worth it is if they price them in the $50-60 range otherwise there just a waste of silicon.

 

[Achaios]

It's almost 2025 and Intel are still trying to sell you 2C/4T CPUs.

Why not monocore with HT like back in P4 days, Intel?

 

[i like foxes]

This test is for Intel 300 . It s underwhelming .// I m not a fan of Gamivo - advertised in the video .

 

[letsgoiowa]

If it were $40 it would be competitive for granny's email machine.

 

[kiwigraeme]

Didn't we use to be able to buy real cheap CPUs with stock cooler for $50 , plus $50 motherboard etc even from Intel. Don't see why can't make a $50 CPU still.

 

[themastergoose]

When you can’t get 24 cores to work, this is where Intel’s troubleshooting ended up…

 

[highwind]

It's almost 2025 and Intel are still trying to sell you 2C/4T CPUs.

Why not monocore with HT like back in P4 days, Intel?

Or 8-cores like the AMD FX-8xxx

 

[Nobina]

Can't wait for the new Intel single core CPU! At $500, it's surprisingly decent, actually!

 

[captaincranky]

Didn't we use to be able to buy real cheap CPUs with stock cooler for $50 , plus $50 motherboard etc even from Intel. Don't see why can't make a $50 CPU still.

Apologies in advance for this mean spirited reality check.

Well, I have some good news and some bad news. Ten years ago you could get something decent, (but not actually good), for $50. + $50. (US). Inflation alone would likely place that at about $75. + 75. (USD again), which would likely be about $85. + $85. in Aussie bucks. (Sorry, Kiwi ducats).

Now, the i5-6600K (Quad NO HT), had an MSRP at the time of release of $242.00.

OTOH, the i3-12100 (w/ IGP, 4C x 8T), hit the street @ about $135.00. By all accounts, it will eat the 6600K alive. I have one of each. But I'm not really OCD enough to run stress tests.

So, a couple of quick questions. Assuming you could buy a CPU & mobo for $100.00 in today's market, would you spring for such a combo? Do you think you'd be happy with it? I'm thinking you'd be at once bellyaching nonstop about its performance, while being overcome with envy of the other gamer children with their crashing i9-14900s.

The truth is, were you a manufacturer you probably could still get that $100.00 deal. However, for you to take possession of the pair, it would have to be wrapped in a $300.00 sh!t laptop at Walmart.
.

 

[kiwigraeme]

Apologies in advance for this mean spirited reality check.

Well, I have some good news and some bad news. Ten years ago you could get something decent, (but not actually good), for $50. + $50. (US). Inflation alone would likely place that at about $75. + 75. (USD again), which would likely be about $85. + $85. in Aussie bucks. (Sorry, Kiwi ducats).

Now, the i5-6600K (Quad NO HT), had an MSRP at the time of release of $242.00.

OTOH, the i3-12100 (w/ IGP, 4C x 8T), hit the street @ about $135.00. By all accounts, it will eat the 6600K alive. I have one of each. But I'm not really OCD enough to run stress tests.

So, a couple of quick questions. Assuming you could buy a CPU & mobo for $100.00 in today's market, would you spring for such a combo? Do you think you'd be happy with it? I'm thinking you'd be at once bellyaching nonstop about its performance, while being overcome with envy of the other gamer children with their crashing i9-14900s.

The truth is, were you a manufacturer you probably could still get that $100.00 deal. However, for you to take possession of the pair, it would have to be wrapped in a $300.00 sh!t laptop at Walmart.
.

No worries, I get inflation, but manufacturing costs have gone down for simple stuff.
Always found it interesting flying NZ-London return nearly same price from 80s to pre-covid, yet wages up, huge increase in flight taxes. landing charges and fuel.

My point is for a simple office, from end PC, or just for browsing, for someone who wants a full screen and and keyboard/mouse

This roll probably will be taken by ARM , and maybe AMD with super efficient low end APUs
Actually Intel used to make motherboards - I suppose anyone could if they could do the bios

I can't see Microsoft carrying on insisting you get this much power for W11/W12 this much NPUs - I get certain security features. ARM/Linux/Steam if they can give people browsers, and games to play ( non-AAA - comfort/casual/sim games )
Wouldn't be supprised Google isn't working in background on Chrome/android to bring steam to ARM as well. Though would cut into it's app store, but what a kick in the teeth for Apple if you could get Steam on android. Valve probably want ARM handholds as well

Actually you are old enough, people just had screens in the 1970s/80s often running of miniframes , mainframes. Really wouldn't it just be better for some companies to do that now, why have 4000 PCS with problems , when could just have a main machine with some kind of backup that's scalable