CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-10105F and Intel Atom x7809C are remarkably close in average benchmark score, with the i3-10105F holding a 0.3% lead (12644 vs 12607). However, a closer look at individual tests reveals two very different performance profiles. The Atom x7809C wins the majority of head-to-head comparisons (11 of 17), dominating in rendering workloads, while the i3-10105F counterattacks with crushing victories in single-threaded and compression tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive win for the Intel Core i3-10105F comes in the PassMark single-thread test, where it scores 2647 against the Atom's 1462. That is an 81.1% advantage, a massive gap that shows the i3's Comet Lake cores are far stronger per-thread than the Atom's Gracemont cores. The same pattern appears in PassMark extended instructions, where the i3 leads 8753 to 5509, a 58.9% margin. For any workload that relies on a single strong core or advanced instruction sets, the i3-10105F is clearly the better chip.

The i3 also wins data compression decisively, scoring 130647 versus the Atom's 111525, a 17.1% advantage. Floating-point math goes slightly to the i3 (18166 vs 17856, a 1.7% lead), and random string sorting also favors the i3 (16414 vs 15728, a 4.4% margin). These wins show the i3's strength in tasks that benefit from its higher clock speeds and mature architecture.

The Intel Atom x7809C, however, sweeps all six Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Atom scores 7997 versus the i3's 7537, a 5.8% lead. The single-core R23 result shows a similar 5.8% edge (1129 vs 1064). The Atom also wins R20 multi-core (3358 vs 3165, 5.7%), R20 single-core (474 vs 446, 5.9%), R15 multi-core (805 vs 759, 5.7%), and R15 single-core (113 vs 107, 5.3%). These consistent wins across Cinebench versions indicate the Atom's 8 physical cores outperform the i3's 4 cores with Hyper-Threading in rendering-style workloads.

The most dramatic Atom victory is in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 7832 versus the i3's 3045. That is a staggering 61.1% difference, suggesting the Atom has hardware-accelerated encryption capabilities that the i3 lacks. The Atom also wins PassMark physics by 16.8% (686 vs 571), prime number finding by 13.8% (29 vs 25), and multi-thread by 5.1% (9409 vs 8930). Integer math is essentially a tie, with the Atom edging ahead 28946 to 28921, a 0.1% difference.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different Intel families and target different markets. The Core i3-10105F uses the Comet Lake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process node. It is a desktop part with an Intel Socket 1200, featuring 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its TDP is 65 watts. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Atom x7809C uses the Amston Lake architecture, also called Gracemont, built on Intel's 10 nm process. This is a mobile processor with an Intel BGA 1264 socket, packing 8 cores and 8 threads (no Hyper-Threading), with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. Its TDP is significantly lower at 25 watts. Cache sizes differ: 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per module, and the same 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The i3-10105F supports only DDR4 with a dual-channel bus, providing 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Atom x7809C supports both DDR4 and DDR5, but uses a single-channel bus, capping bandwidth at 38.4 GB/s. Despite the lower peak bandwidth, the Atom's support for DDR5 may offer other benefits such as lower latency. PCIe connectivity also differs: the i3 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Atom provides Gen 3 with only 9 lanes.

The i3-10105F has no integrated graphics, and the Atom lists its integrated graphics as "N/A". Neither chip includes ECC memory support. The i3 was released on 2021-03-15, while the Atom launched later on 2024-04-07. The i3 carries part number SRH8V, and the Atom is SRNEN. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-10105F has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 12644, compared to the Intel Atom x7809C's 12607, a difference of just 0.3%.

Q: Why does the Atom x7809C win so many Cinebench tests despite having a lower average score?

A: The Atom x7809C wins all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23 in both single and multi-core) with margins between 5.3% and 5.9%. This is because its 8 physical cores outperform the i3-10105F's 4 cores with Hyper-Threading in rendering workloads, even though the i3 wins other types of benchmarks by larger margins.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap between the two chips?

A: The Core i3-10105F is dramatically faster in single-thread performance. In the PassMark single-thread test, the i3 scores 2647 versus the Atom's 1462, an 81.1% advantage. This is the largest performance gap in any benchmark between the two processors.

Q: Does the Atom x7809C have an advantage in encryption workloads?

A: Yes, the Atom x7809C wins PassMark data encryption by a massive 61.1%, scoring 7832 versus the i3-10105F's 3045. This suggests the Atom has more capable encryption hardware.

Q: What are the differences in memory support?

A: The i3-10105F supports only DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Atom x7809C supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but uses a single-channel bus, providing 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Atom also has fewer PCIe lanes (9 vs 16 on the i3).

Q: Which processor has a lower power draw?

A: The Atom x7809C has a TDP of 25 watts, while the i3-10105F has a TDP of 65 watts. This makes the Atom significantly more power-efficient, though this is not reflected in its benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-10105F | Intel Atom x7809C |

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

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.70 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Architecture | Comet Lake | Amston Lake |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB (per module) |

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

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes | Gen 3, 9 Lanes |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2021-03-15 | 2024-04-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $97 | $117 |

| Part Number | SRH8V | SRNEN |

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a clear picture: the Intel Atom x7809C is the better all-round performer in multi-core and rendering workloads, while the Intel Core i3-10105F excels in single-threaded and compression tasks. The Atom's 11 wins versus the i3's 6 wins in head-to-head tests, combined with its lower 25-watt TDP, make it the stronger choice for most users. The Atom's consistent 5.7% to 5.9% lead across every Cinebench version indicates a real architectural advantage in CPU-intensive rendering, despite its lower clock speeds. The i3-10105F's 81.1% lead in single-thread performance is the most striking individual result, but it is an outlier that does not translate to overall superiority.

The Atom x7809C also has a more modern 10 nm process node (versus the i3's 14 nm), support for DDR5 memory, and a later release date. Its 8 cores provide better raw threading capability, and its 61.1% lead in data encryption makes it useful for security-related workloads. The i3-10105F is not without merit, it offers significantly better single-thread performance and data compression, but its 65-watt TDP and older architecture put it at a disadvantage in most modern workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Atom x7809C is the pick for rendering, encoding, and multi-threaded productivity. Its wins in all Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23) show it handles sustained CPU loads better, and its 16.8% lead in PassMark physics makes it suitable for simulation tasks. The 61.1% encryption advantage makes it a strong option for security software, VPNs, or any data protection workload. Its lower 25-watt TDP also makes it suitable for compact or power-constrained systems, such as mobile devices or embedded applications.

The Intel Core i3-10105F wins where single-thread speed and compression matter most. Its 81.1% lead in PassMark single-thread makes it better for older software, spreadsheet calculations, or any task that cannot use multiple cores effectively. The 17.1% lead in data compression makes it ideal for file archiving or database workloads that rely on zip-like operations. The 58.9% lead in extended instructions suggests it handles AVX-heavy or specialized instruction sets more efficiently, which could benefit certain scientific or multimedia applications. For desktop users who need fast response times in everyday applications, the i3's 4.40 GHz boost clock and superior per-core performance make it a viable alternative, despite its lower core count.