Intel Core i3-10105F vs Intel Core i3-12100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive outcome: the Intel Core i3-12100 wins 18 of 19 recorded head-to-head tests, with the Intel Core i3-10105F securing a single victory. The margin of superiority is consistent across nearly every workload category, making this one of the more one-sided comparisons in the database.

The largest gap appears in PassMark data encryption, where the i3-12100 scores 7222 against 3045 for the i3-10105F, a difference of 57.8%. This is more than double the older chip's output and indicates a fundamental advantage in cryptographic workloads. Prime number finding shows a similar story: the i3-12100 scores 49 versus 25, a 49% advantage, suggesting significantly better integer-heavy single-threaded execution.

Cinebench results reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i3-12100 scores 10623 against 7537, a 29.1% lead. The single-core R23 test shows 1499 versus 1064, a 29% gap. Cinebench R15 and R20 both show identical 29.1% deltas in multi-core testing, with the i3-12100 posting 1070 versus 759 in R15 and 4461 versus 3165 in R20. Single-core results in those older versions also sit at 28.7% and 29.1% respectively.

Geekbench shows the widest multi-core delta of any benchmark family: the i3-12100 scores 7214 against 4920, a 31.8% lead. Single-core Geekbench is closer at 1962 versus 1470, a 25.1% gap. PassMark floating point math shows a 35.2% advantage for the i3-12100, with scores of 28015 and 18166. Integer math is a smaller but still substantial 18.9% gap, 35678 versus 28921.

PassMark multi-threaded performance gives the i3-12100 12170 versus 8930, a 26.6% lead, while the physics test shows 776 versus 571, a 26.4% difference. Extended instructions favor the i3-12100 by 9.8%, 9702 versus 8753. Data compression is closer still at 8%, with 142060 versus 130647. Single-threaded PassMark shows a 16.6% gap, 3173 versus 2647.

The single counterexample is PassMark random string sorting, where the i3-10105F scores 16414 against 14286 for the i3-12100, a 14.9% advantage. This is the only workload in the entire comparison where the older chip leads, and it stands as an outlier against an otherwise uniform trend.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-12100 dominates across rendering, general productivity, and compute-heavy tasks. Cinebench results indicate that both multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering workloads benefit substantially from the newer architecture. Geekbench scores point to advantages in everyday application performance and browser-based workloads. PassMark encryption and prime number tests show strengths in security-related tasks and mathematical computation. Floating point and integer math results suggest the i3-12100 is better suited to scientific computing, financial modeling, and content creation.

The i3-10105F wins only in random string sorting. This specific workload, which involves ordering arbitrary string data, appears to favor the older Comet Lake design. For users whose primary tasks involve heavy string manipulation or sorting algorithms, the i3-10105F offers a measurable advantage. However, this is a narrow use case that does not generalize to broader performance categories.

In multi-threaded scenarios, the i3-12100's lead ranges from 8% in data compression to 57.8% in encryption. The pattern suggests that the newer chip scales better with parallel workloads, even though both processors feature 4 cores and 8 threads. In single-threaded scenarios, the i3-12100 leads by 16.6% to 29.1% depending on the test, indicating a substantial per-core efficiency advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct generations of Intel desktop silicon. The i3-10105F uses the Comet Lake architecture, specifically the Comet Lake-R codename, built on a 14 nm process node. The i3-12100 uses the Alder Lake architecture with the Alder Lake-S codename, manufactured on a 10 nm node. Both are produced by Intel.

Cache configurations differ notably. The i3-10105F has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The i3-12100 doubles the L1 to 80 KB per core, increases L2 to 1.25 MB per core, and doubles shared L3 to 12 MB. The larger cache hierarchy likely contributes to the newer chip's performance advantage, particularly in workloads that benefit from data locality.

Memory support differs as well. The i3-10105F supports DDR4 only, with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The i3-12100 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, though no bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. The newer chip also offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the i3-10105F is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes.

The i3-12100 includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 730, while the i3-10105F has no integrated graphics, as indicated by the F suffix in its name. The i3-10105F has a launch MSRP of $97, while the i3-12100 has a launch MSRP of $122. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The i3-10105F uses the Intel Socket 1200, while the i3-12100 uses the Intel Socket 1700, meaning motherboard compatibility is not interchangeable between the two.

The i3-10105F has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, with a TDP of 65 watts. The i3-12100 has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, with a TDP of 60 watts. Despite lower clock speeds, the i3-12100 outperforms the i3-10105F in nearly every benchmark, indicating that architectural efficiency outweighs raw clock rate. The die size for the i3-12100 is recorded as 163 mm², while no die size is available for the i3-10105F. Release dates also differ: the i3-10105F launched on 2021-03-15, and the i3-12100 launched on 2022-01-03.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i3-12100 wins all multi-core benchmarks in the database. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 10623 versus 7537, a 29.1% lead. Geekbench multi-core shows 7214 versus 4920, a 31.8% lead. PassMark multi-thread shows 12170 versus 8930, a 26.6% advantage.

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

A: Yes, one test: PassMark random string sorting. The i3-10105F scores 16414 versus 14286 for the i3-12100, a 14.9% advantage. This is the only win for the older processor across all 19 recorded head-to-head tests.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The i3-12100 leads in every single-threaded benchmark. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1499 versus 1064, a 29% gap. Geekbench single-core shows 1962 versus 1470, a 25.1% difference. PassMark single-thread shows 3173 versus 2647, a 16.6% lead.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The i3-10105F supports DDR4 only, with dual-channel memory. The i3-12100 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel. The memory bandwidth for the i3-10105F is recorded at 42.7 GB/s, while no bandwidth figure is listed for the i3-12100.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The i3-12100 has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 6 MB found on the i3-10105F. The i3-12100 also has 80 KB of L1 cache per core versus 64 KB, and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core versus 256 KB.

Q: Are the two processors socket-compatible?

A: No. The i3-10105F uses Intel Socket 1200, while the i3-12100 uses Intel Socket 1700. They cannot be used interchangeably on the same motherboard.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-10105F | Intel Core i3-12100 |

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

| Architecture | Comet Lake | Alder Lake |

| Codename | Comet Lake-R | Alder Lake-S |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

| Base Clock | 3.70 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 60 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | Not recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 163 mm² |

| Launch MSRP | $97 | $122 |

| Release Date | 2021-03-15 | 2022-01-03 |

| Part Number | SRH8V | SRL62 |

The two processors share 4 cores, 8 threads, dual-channel memory support, no ECC memory support, no unlocked multiplier, and an active production status. Both are desktop-class parts from Intel.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation: the Intel Core i3-12100 is the superior processor in nearly every measurable way. It wins 18 of 19 head-to-head tests, with advantages ranging from 8% in data compression to 57.8% in data encryption. The only exception is random string sorting, where the i3-10105F leads by 14.9%.

Buyers should choose the i3-12100 for rendering workloads, general productivity, cryptography, mathematical computation, and any task that benefits from either multi-threaded or single-threaded performance. The 29.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 31.8% lead in Geekbench multi-core make it the stronger choice for content creation and compilation tasks. The 16.6% to 29.1% single-threaded advantages also make it preferable for everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded applications.

The i3-10105F is only the better choice for the narrow scenario of random string sorting, where its 14.9% advantage is the sole bright spot. Its higher base and boost clocks do not translate into broader performance wins, and its smaller cache and older process node place it behind in almost every recorded workload. The i3-12100 also offers newer PCIe Gen 5 support, integrated graphics, and dual memory type compatibility, all of which are absent from the i3-10105F.

Both processors sit at the 67th percentile among all CPUs in the database, and their average benchmark scores are close: 12644 for the i3-10105F and 12054 for the i3-12100. However, the head-to-head results are unambiguous. The i3-12100 is the recommended processor for virtually all use cases. The i3-10105F should only be considered if the specific string sorting workload is the primary application and the 14.9% advantage justifies its selection.