CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-1215U and Intel Core i3-10105 are two very different interpretations of the "Core i3" name: one is a low-power mobile chip built for thin-and-light laptops, the other is a mainstream desktop part designed for budget towers. The benchmark data shows a clear split: the desktop chip wins most traditional rendering workloads, while the mobile chip dominates in math, encryption, and threaded productivity tasks. The 1215U takes 10 of the 19 head-to-head benchmark wins, while the 10105 takes 9, but the margins tell a more nuanced story than the win count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in PassMark data encryption, where the 1215U scores 7041 against the 10105's 2723, a massive 158.6% advantage. That is not a small edge; it is a complete reversal of expectations for a 15W mobile part versus a 65W desktop chip. The 1215U also wins PassMark find prime numbers by 60% (32 vs 20), floating point math by 41.4% (25379 vs 17949), and integer math by 24.3% (35534 vs 28577). In PassMark multithread, the 1215U posts 10472 versus 8241, a 27.1% lead, and it wins PassMark physics by 24.8% (583 vs 467). Single-thread performance in PassMark also favors the 1215U: 3218 versus 2589, a 24.3% advantage.

The 10105 fights back hard in Cinebench, which is a rendering workload that scales with sustained multi-core throughput. Across all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23), the 10105 wins both single-core and multi-core tests by a consistent 5.1% to 5.5% margin. For example, Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 7029 for the 10105 versus 6644 for the 1215U; single-core shows 992 versus 938. In Cinebench R15, the 10105 scores 708 vs 669 multi-core and 99 vs 94 single-core. These are narrow but uniform wins. The 10105 also wins PassMark data compression by 9.2% (128464 vs 116705), extended instructions by 20.6% (8648 vs 6868), and random string sorting by 17.9% (15899 vs 13046).

Geekbench tells a mixed story. The 1215U wins Geekbench single-core by a solid 12.6% (1485 vs 1319), but the two chips are nearly tied in Geekbench multi-core: 4365 for the 1215U versus 4325 for the 10105, a 0.9% edge. That near-tie in multi-core is notable because the 10105 has only 4 cores and 8 threads, while the 1215U has 6 cores and 8 threads. The 10105 compensates with a much higher base clock (3.70 GHz vs 1.20 GHz), even though both boost to 4.40 GHz. The overall average benchmark scores reflect the split: the 1215U averages 12604, the 10105 averages 12316, and both sit at the 67th percentile among all CPUs. The nearest rival data confirms they are performance peers, the 1215U is within 0.3% of the Core i3-10105F (12644), and the 10105 is within 0.6% of the Core i7-6700K (12237).

The Verdict

The data does not crown a single winner; it identifies two distinct tools for two distinct jobs. The Intel Core i3-1215U is the better choice for anyone who prioritizes single-thread responsiveness, encryption throughput, and math-heavy workloads. Its 12.6% lead in Geekbench single-core and 158.6% blowout in PassMark data encryption are the kind of margins that matter in everyday use, faster page loads, snappier application launches, and much quicker file encryption. It also wins PassMark multithread by 27.1%, which means it handles parallel productivity tasks like compiling or batch image processing better than its desktop counterpart.

The Intel Core i3-10105 is the pick when sustained multi-core rendering is the primary job. Its consistent 5.5% lead across all Cinebench versions shows that it can hold its own in CPU-bound rendering, and its 20.6% win in PassMark extended instructions suggests better performance in legacy or specialized instruction sets. Its wins in data compression (9.2%) and random string sorting (17.9%) point to strengths in database-like operations and text processing. The 10105 also carries a launch MSRP of $122, though this comparison is about performance, not price.

For a laptop buyer, the 1215U is the obvious choice, it is the only mobile part here, and its benchmark profile is actually stronger in several key areas despite its 15W TDP versus the 10105's 65W TDP. For a desktop builder who already has an LGA 1200 motherboard or wants maximum Cinebench scores, the 10105 delivers. The data shows you are not sacrificing much either way; you are just choosing which workloads you want to favor.

Where Each One Wins

The 1215U wins in all the math and encryption categories: PassMark data encryption (+158.6%), find prime numbers (+60%), floating point math (+41.4%), integer math (+24.3%), multithread (+27.1%), physics (+24.8%), and single-thread (+24.3%). It also wins Geekbench single-core (+12.6%) and Geekbench multi-core (+0.9%). This makes it the better choice for cryptography, scientific computing, financial modeling, and any application that leverages AVX or similar math instruction sets. Its PassMark multithread win also makes it the better option for modern multi-threaded productivity software that is not purely rendering-based.

The 10105 wins every Cinebench test (R15, R20, R23) in both single and multi-core, with margins between 5.1% and 5.5%. It also wins PassMark data compression (+9.2%), extended instructions (+20.6%), and random string sorting (+17.9%). This makes it the better choice for 3D rendering in Blender or Cinema 4D, video encoding, and any workload that relies on data compression or sorting algorithms. The extended instructions win is particularly relevant for older software compiled with SSE or AVX optimizations.

The win count is nearly even (10 vs 9), but the magnitude of the 1215U's wins is much larger on average. The 1215U's biggest win is 158.6%, while the 10105's biggest win is 20.6%. That asymmetry matters: the 1215U is not just edging out the 10105 in its winning categories; it is crushing it. The 10105 wins are all narrow, suggesting it is a more specialized part that excels specifically in rendering and compression workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-1215U wins Geekbench single-core by 12.6% (1485 vs 1319) and PassMark single-thread by 24.3% (3218 vs 2589). However, the Intel Core i3-10105 wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 5.4% (992 vs 938) and Cinebench R15 single-core by 5.1% (99 vs 94).

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Core i3-10105 wins all Cinebench multi-core tests: R23 (7029 vs 6644, -5.5% delta), R20 (2952 vs 2790, -5.5%), and R15 (708 vs 669, -5.5%). The 1215U wins PassMark multithread by 27.1% (10472 vs 8241).

Q: How do they compare in average benchmark scores?

A: The 1215U has an average benchmark score of 12604, while the 10105 averages 12316. Both are at the 67th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The Intel Core i3-1215U has 6 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i3-10105 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The 1215U has a TDP of 15W, while the 10105 has a TDP of 65W. This is a 50W difference, reflecting the 1215U's mobile design versus the 10105's desktop design.

Q: Which CPU has better encryption performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-1215U dominates PassMark data encryption with a score of 7041 versus 2723 for the 10105, a 158.6% advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from completely different architectural eras. The 1215U is built on Alder Lake, Intel's 10nm process, with the Alder Lake-U codename and a release date of February 2022. The 10105 is based on Comet Lake, Intel's 14nm process, with the Comet Lake-R codename and a March 2021 release date. This process difference explains a lot: the 1215U achieves its performance at just 15W TDP, while the 10105 requires 65W to hit similar or worse results in many benchmarks. The 1215U uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket, which is a mobile platform, while the 10105 uses Intel Socket 1200 for desktop builds.

Memory support differs significantly. The 1215U supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 10105 only supports DDR4. The 10105 has a listed memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s; the 1215U's bandwidth is not specified in the data. The 1215U also has a PCIe Gen 4 interface with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the 10105 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). This gives the 1215U a modern I/O advantage for NVMe storage and newer GPUs.

Integrated graphics also differ: the 1215U has UHD Graphics 64EU, while the 10105 has UHD Graphics 630. The 1215U's part number is SRLFU; the 10105's is SRH3P. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option on either platform.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: the 1215U has 6 cores, the 10105 has 4 cores, but both have 8 threads. Base clocks are dramatically different, the 1215U runs at 1.20 GHz base, the 10105 at 3.70 GHz base, though both boost to 4.40 GHz. Cache layouts are entirely different: the 1215U has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 10 MB shared L3; the 10105 has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. The 1215U's larger L2 cache per core is a key reason it wins math-heavy workloads despite the clock deficit.

TDP is a major differentiator: 15W for the 1215U versus 65W for the 10105. Memory support is broader on the 1215U (DDR4, DDR5) versus DDR4 only on the 10105. PCIe generation and lane counts differ: Gen 4 with 20 lanes versus Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The market segments are opposite: Mobile for the 1215U, Desktop for the 10105. The 10105 has a launch MSRP of $122; the 1215U has no MSRP listed. Both are currently active in production, and neither supports ECC memory. The 10105 also lists a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, which the 1215U does not specify.