AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 vs Intel Core i3-10105 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data presents a decisive matchup. Across all six Cinebench comparisons, the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 claims victory, and the margins are substantial. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the AMD part scores 3996 against the Intel Core i3-10105's 708, a delta of 464.4%. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 564 for the AMD chip versus 99 for Intel, a 469.7% advantage. These are not marginal wins; the Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 more than quintuples the Core i3's output in both cases.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the gap remains consistent. The Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 records 16654 multi-core points, while the Core i3-10105 manages 2952, a 464.2% difference. In single-core R20, the scores are 2351 and 416 respectively, yielding a 465.1% delta. The pattern holds through Cinebench R23: the AMD chip posts 39653 multi-core and 5598 single-core, versus 7029 and 992 for the Intel part. These deltas, 464.1% and 464.3%, confirm that the performance disparity is uniform across the entire Cinebench suite, regardless of which version of the test is used.

The data indicates that the Ryzen 9 PRO 7945's wins are not concentrated in one workload type. Both multi-threaded and single-threaded tests show similar relative gaps. The smallest single-core delta is 464.3% in R23, and the largest is 469.7% in R15. For multi-core, the range is tight: from 464.1% in R23 to 464.4% in R15. This consistency suggests the underlying architectural differences produce a stable advantage across the board, rather than a scenario where one chip excels in a narrow niche.

For context within the broader database, the Ryzen 9 PRO 7945's average benchmark score is 11469, placing it near rivals such as the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 at 11574 (0.9% lower) and the AMD EPYC 73F3 at 11334 (1.2% higher). The Core i3-10105, despite its lower Cinebench figures, has an average benchmark score of 12316, which sits above the Ryzen 9 PRO 7945's 11469. This average includes a wider range of tests for the Intel part, including Geekbench and Passmark workloads where its scores are comparatively stronger. The Core i3-10105's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-6700K at 12237 (0.6% lower) and the AMD EPYC 9174F at 12536 (1.8% higher). Both processors share a 67th percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database, meaning they outperform a majority of recorded parts, though the Ryzen 9 PRO 7945's percentile is driven by fewer, more specialized benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 wins every head-to-head Cinebench test, making it the clear choice for rendering and CPU-bound compute tasks. Its 12 cores and 24 threads allow it to handle multi-threaded workloads with far greater efficiency than the Core i3-10105's 4 cores and 8 threads. The single-core results are equally lopsided, indicating that the Zen 4 architecture delivers superior per-thread performance as well. For users running Cinebench R15, R20, or R23, the AMD part is the definitive winner.

The Core i3-10105, however, shows strength in other recorded benchmarks that the head-to-head table does not include. Its Geekbench multi-core score of 4325 and single-core score of 1319 are notable for a 4-core part. In Passmark tests, it records 128464 in data compression, 2723 in data encryption, and 8648 in extended instructions. It also posts 17949 in floating point math, 28577 in integer math, and 8241 in multithread. These figures contribute to its higher average benchmark score of 12316, which exceeds the Ryzen 9 PRO 7945's 11469. The Intel chip's nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-6700K, trails it by only 0.6%, suggesting the Core i3-10105 is competitive within its own performance tier.

The use-case split is therefore clear: the Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 dominates in Cinebench-style rendering and heavily threaded compute, while the Core i3-10105 holds its own in the broader Passmark and Geekbench suite, where its average score is higher. The database does not record Passmark or Geekbench results for the Ryzen 9 PRO 7945, so a direct comparison in those tests is not possible. What the data does show is that each processor wins in different measurement contexts, with the AMD chip winning all six direct comparisons and the Intel chip achieving a higher overall average across its recorded tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-10105 has an average benchmark score of 12316, while the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 has an average of 11469.

Q: What is the largest single-core performance difference in the head-to-head tests?

A: The largest single-core delta is in Cinebench R15, where the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 scores 564 against the Intel Core i3-10105's 99, a 469.7% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-10105 win any of the six head-to-head Cinebench tests?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 464.1% to 469.7%.

Q: How does the Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon Gold 6342?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 has an average score of 11574, which is 0.9% lower than the Ryzen 9 PRO 7945's 11469.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 supports 83.2 GB/s, while the Intel Core i3-10105 supports 42.7 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors still in active production?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 and the Intel Core i3-10105 have a production status of Active.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core i3-10105 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are identical at 3.70 GHz for both, but the boost clock differs: the AMD chip reaches 5.40 GHz, while the Intel chip tops out at 4.40 GHz. Both have a TDP of 65, so power draw is nominally the same, though the underlying architectures achieve this with very different designs.

The socket and platform requirements are entirely separate. The Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Core i3-10105 uses Intel Socket 1200. Memory support also diverges: the AMD part uses DDR5, the Intel part uses DDR4. Both are dual-channel, but the memory bandwidth figures are 83.2 GB/s for the AMD chip and 42.7 GB/s for the Intel chip. ECC memory is supported on the AMD processor but not on the Intel one.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 supports Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Core i3-10105 supports Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the AMD chip includes Radeon Graphics, while the Intel chip includes UHD Graphics 630. The market segment classification separates them too, with the AMD part listed as Server/Workstation and the Intel part as Desktop. Release dates are recorded as 2023-06-12 for the AMD chip and 2021-03-15 for the Intel chip. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $122; no launch MSRP is recorded for the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is stark. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 is built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Raphael, part of the 7000 series, and is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core i3-10105 uses Comet Lake architecture with the codename Comet Lake-R, part of the Core 10th Gen series, and is fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel. The process node difference alone explains much of the performance and efficiency gap.

Cache configurations are also markedly different. The AMD chip has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 cache difference is particularly significant: 64 MB versus 6 MB, a tenfold gap that benefits the Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 in data-heavy workloads. The transistor count for the AMD chip is recorded as 13,140 million, with a die size of 2x 71 mm². No transistor count or die size is recorded for the Intel chip.

The generation labels reflect the timeline. The AMD part is listed as Ryzen 9 (Zen 4 (Raphael)), while the Intel part is Core i3 (Comet Lake). Both are recorded as having a locked multiplier, so neither supports manual overclocking. The part numbers are 100-000000598 for the AMD chip and SRH3P for the Intel chip. The Intel part includes additional benchmark records for Geekbench and Passmark tests, which the AMD part does not have in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for users prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering: the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 is the superior processor. It wins all six head-to-head tests with deltas above 464%, and its 12-core, 24-thread configuration, 64 MB of L3 cache, and 5.40 GHz boost clock provide a decisive edge in both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. Its 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth and DDR5 support further cement its position for memory-intensive tasks. The Intel Core i3-10105 cannot match these figures, and its 4-core, 8-thread layout with 6 MB of L3 cache and 4.40 GHz boost clock places it in a different performance class.

However, the Intel Core i3-10105 is not without merit in the recorded data. Its average benchmark score of 12316 exceeds the AMD chip's 11469, driven by strong Geekbench and Passmark results. For users working with data compression, encryption, or integer math, the Core i3-10105's recorded scores, such as 128464 in data compression and 28577 in integer math, indicate capable performance in those specific areas. Its lower memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s and DDR4 support are less advanced, but the chip remains competitive within its tier, trailing the Intel Core i7-6700K by only 0.6% in average score.

The choice depends on the workload. For rendering, simulation, or any task that scales with cores and cache, the Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 is the clear selection. For general desktop use where the Passmark and Geekbench suite is more representative, the Core i3-10105 holds its own and even surpasses the AMD chip in overall average score. The Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 is positioned for server and workstation duties, while the Core i3-10105 targets the desktop segment. Both are active in production, so availability is not a concern. The recorded data does not include a head-to-head Geekbench or Passmark comparison, so any verdict beyond Cinebench must rely on the separate average scores and the broader benchmark context.