CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-10105F and Intel Core i3-10105 are two nearly identical desktop processors from Intel’s 10th Gen Comet Lake lineup, sharing the same core configuration, clock speeds, and cache layout. The single defining difference is the presence of integrated graphics on the non-F variant. Benchmark data, however, reveals that the F variant consistently outperforms its counterpart across every single test in the comparison suite, often by significant margins. This analysis breaks down those performance deltas, the architectural distinctions, and which processor is the better pick based strictly on the numbers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the complete dominance of the Intel Core i3-10105F. Across all 19 benchmark comparisons, the F variant wins every single test, with a win count of 19 versus 0 for the Intel Core i3-10105. The margins are not uniform, though, and the distribution of these deltas reveals where the F part’s advantage is largest.

The largest single-core gains appear in synthetic CPU tests. In Geekbench single-core, the i3-10105F scores 1470 against 1319 for the i3-10105, a delta of 11.4%. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a similar gap, with the F part scoring 107 versus 99, an 8.1% advantage. These are substantial differences for two processors that share identical base and boost clocks of 3.70 GHz and 4.40 GHz respectively. The consistency of this single-core lead across different benchmark families suggests a measurable, reproducible advantage that is not a statistical fluke.

Multi-core workloads amplify the gap even further. Geekbench multicore shows the i3-10105F at 4920 versus 4325, a 13.8% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore results are 3165 versus 2952, a 7.2% delta, and Cinebench R23 multicore shows 7537 versus 7029, also a 7.2% difference. The PassMark multithread test scores 8930 for the F part versus 8241 for the non-F, an 8.4% margin. For a 4-core, 8-thread desktop processor, these multi-core deltas are meaningful and would translate into faster rendering times in Cinebench or better throughput in heavily threaded productivity tasks.

Some of the most extreme percentage differences emerge in specific PassMark sub-tests. The `passmark_find_prime_numbers` test shows a 25% delta, with scores of 25 versus 20. PassMark physics shows a 22.3% delta (571 versus 467). These tests are known to be sensitive to memory latency and cache efficiency, hinting that the F variant may have a more favorable memory controller or cache behavior in practice. Data encryption also shows a substantial 11.8% delta (3045 versus 2723), while data compression is closer at 1.7% (130647 versus 128464). Integer math, floating point math, and extended instructions all show modest 1.2% deltas, indicating that raw ALU/FPU throughput is nearly identical, and the larger gaps come from memory-sensitive or latency-sensitive workloads.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this trend: the i3-10105F has an average benchmark score of 12644, while the i3-10105 sits at 12316. This places the F part in a higher performance tier relative to its nearest rivals, with a 0.3% delta above the Intel Atom x7809C and Intel Core i3-1215U, and a 0.7% delta above the Intel Core i5-1230U. The non-F part, by contrast, trails those same rivals, showing a 0.6% delta above the Intel Core i7-6700K but a 1.8% delta below the AMD EPYC 9174F and a 1.9% delta below the Core i5-1230U.

Architecture Differences

From a pure silicon perspective, the two processors are architecturally identical. Both are built on Intel’s 14 nm process node, use the Comet Lake architecture (specifically Comet Lake-R codename), and are manufactured by Intel. They share the same core count of 4 cores and 8 threads, with identical base and boost clocks of 3.70 GHz and 4.40 GHz. The cache hierarchy is exactly the same: 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have a TDP of 65 watts and fit the Intel Socket 1200.

Memory support is also identical. Both support DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is the same: Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Both processors are unlocked for multi-core enhancement but have their multiplier locked, meaning overclocking is not officially supported. They also share the same release date of March 15, 2021, and are both still in active production.

The sole architectural difference lies in the integrated graphics. The Intel Core i3-10105 includes UHD Graphics 630, while the Intel Core i3-10105F has no integrated graphics at all. This is the classic "F" designation in Intel’s lineup, which typically denotes a disabled or absent iGPU die. The presence of the UHD 630 on the non-F part adds a display output capability but does not change any CPU-side performance characteristics. The F variant is otherwise a drop-in replacement with the same part number family, though the specific part numbers differ (SRH8V for the F, SRH3P for the non-F).

The process node, foundry, and core architecture are identical, so the performance differences observed in benchmarks cannot be attributed to any silicon-level change. Instead, the data suggests that the F variant may benefit from a higher binning or a more favorable power delivery profile, or that the benchmark samples simply ran with slightly different thermal or power conditions. The consistency of the performance lead across all 19 tests, however, points to a systematic difference rather than random variance.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-10105F is the faster processor in every measurable way. It posts a 7.2% to 13.8% advantage across Cinebench and Geekbench multi-core tests, an 8.1% to 11.4% lead in single-core tests, and a 1.2% to 25% edge across PassMark sub-tests. The average benchmark score of 12644 versus 12316 puts the F part in a higher performance class, and it outperforms its nearest rivals by a wider margin than the non-F part does.

The only reason to choose the Intel Core i3-10105 over the F variant is the presence of the UHD Graphics 630. If the system requires onboard display output or needs a fallback for GPU troubleshooting, the non-F part is the only option. The data shows that this convenience comes at a measurable performance cost, though the magnitude varies by workload. In pure CPU performance terms, the i3-10105F is the superior product.

The launch MSRP for the Intel Core i3-10105F is $97, and the launch MSRP for the Intel Core i3-10105 is $122. This price gap further underscores the F variant’s value proposition, though pricing analysis is beyond the scope of this benchmark comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-10105F wins all single-core tests. It leads by 8.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core (107 versus 99) and by 11.4% in Geekbench single-core (1470 versus 1319).

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel Core i3-10105 wins?

A: No. Across all 19 head-to-head benchmarks, the Intel Core i3-10105F wins every test. The win count is 19 for the F variant and 0 for the non-F variant.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest percentage delta is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the i3-10105F scores 25 versus 20 for the i3-10105, a 25% difference. PassMark physics also shows a large 22.3% gap.

Q: Do the two processors have the same core and clock specifications?

A: Yes. Both have 4 cores and 8 threads, a base clock of 3.70 GHz, a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, and a TDP of 65 watts. They also share the same 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the key difference in features?

A: The Intel Core i3-10105 includes integrated UHD Graphics 630, while the Intel Core i3-10105F has no integrated graphics. All other specifications, including memory support, PCIe lanes, and socket, are identical.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i3-10105F has an average benchmark score of 12644, while the Intel Core i3-10105 has an average score of 12316. The F part also holds a higher percentile rank at 67 versus 67, though both are at the same percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-10105F wins in every performance category measured. For multi-threaded productivity, it delivers a 7.2% lead in Cinebench R20 and R23 multicore, and a 13.8% lead in Geekbench multicore, making it the clear choice for CPU-bound rendering or batch processing. For single-threaded workloads, the 8.1% to 11.4% advantage in Cinebench and Geekbench single-core tests translates to snappier responsiveness in lightly threaded applications. Memory-sensitive and latency-sensitive tasks show the most dramatic deltas, with a 25% lead in prime number finding and a 22.3% lead in physics simulations, suggesting the F variant handles cache and memory access patterns more efficiently.

The Intel Core i3-10105 does not win any performance benchmarks. Its only advantage is the integrated UHD Graphics 630, which provides a video output without a discrete GPU. This makes the non-F part the only viable option for a build that requires onboard display functionality or for a system where a dedicated graphics card is unavailable or temporarily removed. For any workload that depends on CPU compute, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark integer math, the data shows the F variant is the superior processor. In a system with a discrete GPU, the i3-10105F is the better choice in every performance metric, and the absence of the iGPU has no negative impact on the benchmark results.