Intel Core i3-10100 vs Intel Core i7-4860HQ Comparison

The Intel Core i7-4860HQ and Intel Core i3-10100 present a fascinating generational clash. Despite an eight-year gap in release dates, both chips land in the 41st percentile of all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 1720 and 1742 respectively. This near-identical overall standing, however, masks wildly divergent performance profiles. The data reveals that the older mobile i7 dominates multi-threaded workloads with roughly double the Cinebench scores, while the newer desktop i3 counterattacks decisively in Geekbench and single-core tests. For builders, this is not a simple "newer is better" scenario; it is a matter of which benchmark suite matches your actual workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the Cinebench sweep. The i7-4860HQ wins all four Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 comparisons by a margin of roughly 106%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i7 scores 5297 against the i3's 2564, a 106.6% advantage. The single-core R23 result tells a similar story: 747 for the i7 versus 362 for the i3, a 106.4% delta. This is not a narrow victory; the i7 is effectively delivering double the rendering performance across every Cinebench iteration, whether the workload is single-threaded or fully threaded. The R20 single-core score is particularly telling: 313 for the i7 versus 152 for the i3, another 105.9% lead.

The i3-10100, however, wins the Geekbench suite outright. In Geekbench multi-core, it scores 4495 against the i7's 3527, a 21.5% advantage. The single-core gap is similar, with the i3 scoring 1350 versus 1045, a 22.6% delta. These are substantial margins, indicating a fundamental difference in how each processor handles the Geekbench workload. Interestingly, the i3 also wins Cinebench R15 single-core with 88 points against 75, a 14.8% lead, but this is the only Cinebench test it takes. The overall win count sits at 5 for the i7 and 3 for the i3, but the magnitude of the i7's Cinebench wins dwarfs the i3's Geekbench victories.

The 3DMark results are exclusive to the i3, with scores of 3235 for 16 threads, 3193 for 8 threads, and 3185 for max threads. The i7 has no corresponding 3DMark data in the pack, so direct comparison is impossible. However, the i3's single-thread 3DMark score of 705 and 2-thread score of 1361 suggest a processor that scales reasonably well across thread counts. The i7's absence from this benchmark leaves a gap in the comparison, but the Cinebench data already establishes that the i7's strength lies in sustained multi-core rendering rather than brief burst workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-4860HQ is the clear winner for content creation and rendering tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 5297 is more than double the i3's 2564, making it the obvious choice for video encoding, 3D rendering, or any workload that leverages all eight threads for extended periods. The consistent 106% lead across R15, R20, and R23 indicates architectural efficiency that the newer i3 cannot match in this specific benchmark family. If your daily driver involves Cinebench-style rendering or similar compute-heavy tasks, the i7's data is unambiguous.

The i3-10100 wins in general-purpose computing and legacy compatibility. Its Geekbench multi-core score of 4495 is 21.5% higher than the i7's 3527, suggesting better performance in day-to-day tasks that Geekbench models, such as web browsing, office applications, and photo editing. The single-core Geekbench lead of 22.6% reinforces this, indicating snappier response in lightly threaded applications. The i3 also holds the only win in Cinebench R15 single-core, though the 14.8% margin here is smaller than its Geekbench leads. For a desktop user who prioritizes application responsiveness over batch rendering, the i3's data points are more favorable.

The 3DMark results, available only for the i3, show scores of 3235 in 16-thread and 3185 in max-thread tests. These are respectable figures, but without i7 data for comparison, they serve mainly to confirm that the i3 handles multi-threaded gaming workloads adequately. The i7's 47W TDP versus the i3's 65W TDP also hints at different deployment scenarios: the i7 is a mobile part designed for laptops, while the i3 is a desktop chip. This is not a performance metric, but it contextualizes the benchmarks within their intended use cases.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The i7-4860HQ uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process node, manufactured by Intel with 1,400 million transistors on a 264 mm² die. Its codename is Crystalwell, reflecting the integrated Intel HD 5200 graphics. The i3-10100, by contrast, uses the Comet Lake architecture on a 14 nm node, with no transistor count or die size listed in the data. Both have 4 cores and 8 threads, and both share the same cache layout: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. This is where the architectural similarities end.

The memory support diverges significantly. The i7 uses DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the i3 uses DDR4 with dual-channel support and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. This 67% bandwidth advantage for the i3 likely contributes to its Geekbench wins, as memory-bound tasks benefit from the faster data transfer. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and both use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The i7's integrated graphics is the Intel HD 5200, a high-end iGPU for its time, while the i3 uses the UHD Graphics 630. These are not benchmarked in the pack, so no performance claims can be made, but the difference in memory generation is a measurable architectural shift.

The sockets are incompatible: the i7 uses Intel BGA 1364 (mobile), and the i3 uses Intel Socket 1200 (desktop). The i7 is end-of-life with a 2014 release date, while the i3 is active with a 2020 release date. The i7's base clock is 2.40 GHz with a 3.60 GHz boost, whereas the i3 runs at 3.60 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option for either. The i7's 47W TDP is lower than the i3's 65W, but this reflects the mobile versus desktop form factor rather than efficiency superiority. The i3's higher clocks and newer memory interface are clear architectural advantages, yet they do not translate into Cinebench wins, suggesting the i7's Haswell core excels at sustained compute despite older memory tech.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is workload-dependent. If your priority is Cinebench-style rendering or multi-threaded compute, the i7-4860HQ is the definitive pick. Its 106.6% lead in R15 multi-core and 106.7% lead in R20 multi-core are overwhelming. The i7 wins 5 of 8 head-to-head benchmarks, and its wins are by nearly double, not marginal percentages. For a laptop user doing video work or 3D rendering, the i7's benchmark profile is compelling, even against a much newer desktop chip.

If your priority is general desktop responsiveness, the i3-10100 is the better data-driven choice. Its Geekbench multi-core score of 4495 is 21.5% ahead, and the single-core score of 1350 is 22.6% ahead. The i3 also wins the only Cinebench single-core test where it competes (R15), showing it is not wholly deficient in that area. The i3's higher base and boost clocks, combined with DDR4 memory bandwidth, position it as the better all-rounder for typical desktop use. However, its Cinebench multi-core scores are so far behind that any rendering workload will be painfully slow compared to the i7.

The 41st percentile ranking for both chips underscores that neither is a high-end part today. But within that tier, the i7 is a render monster with poor Geekbench performance, while the i3 is a balanced desktop chip that sacrifices rendering throughput. The i7's mobile BGA socket limits it to laptops, and the i3's Socket 1200 fits modern desktop boards. There is no universal winner; there is only the right tool for the job. The data says pick the i7 for compute-heavy rendering, pick the i3 for everyday desktop speed.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher multi-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core i7-4860HQ scores 5297, which is 106.6% higher than the Intel Core i3-10100's 2564.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-10100 lead in any Cinebench test?

A: Yes, it wins Cinebench R15 single-core with 88 points versus the i7's 75, a 14.8% advantage. It loses all other Cinebench tests.

Q: What is the Geekbench multi-core score difference?

A: The i3-10100 scores 4495, which is 21.5% higher than the i7-4860HQ's 3527.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread count?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads, with identical L1 (64 KB per core), L2 (256 KB per core), and L3 (6 MB shared) cache sizes.

Q: Which CPU has faster memory bandwidth?

A: The i3-10100 has 42.7 GB/s bandwidth with DDR4, while the i7-4860HQ has 25.6 GB/s with DDR3.

Q: Are the sockets compatible between the two CPUs?

A: No, the i7 uses Intel BGA 1364 (mobile), and the i3 uses Intel Socket 1200 (desktop). They are not interchangeable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-4860HQ | Intel Core i3-10100 |

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

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.60 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 47 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1364 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Comet Lake |

| Codename | Crystalwell | Comet Lake |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 264 mm² | Not listed |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 5200 | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2014-01-31 | 2020-04-29 |

| Part Number | SR1BP | SRH3N |