CPU Comparison
Intel Core i3-10105F
Core i3-1215U
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core i3-10105F vs Intel Core i3-1215U
The Intel Core i3-10105F and Intel Core i3-1215U are remarkably close in overall average benchmark score, with the desktop chip edging out the mobile part by just 0.3% (12644 vs 12604). Both sit at the 67th percentile of all CPUs, making them effectively equivalent in aggregate performance. The verdict is a split decision: the Core i3-10105F is the pick for sustained multi-threaded workloads and legacy desktop compatibility, while the Core i3-1215U wins for single-thread responsiveness, encryption, and floating-point math. The 10105F claims 10 of 19 head-to-head benchmark wins, but the 1215U takes the other 9, often by larger margins in its favored tests.
The Verdict
The data shows two chips with nearly identical average scores, but their strengths diverge sharply by workload type. The Core i3-10105F wins every Cinebench test, R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core variants, with deltas ranging from 13.4% to 13.8%. If your priority is rendering or any Cinebench-style workload, the 10105F is the clear choice. It also crushes the 1215U in PassMark's extended instructions (8753 vs 6868, a 27.4% lead) and random string sorting (16414 vs 13046, a 25.8% lead).
The Core i3-1215U fights back decisively in PassMark's math and encryption tests. It leads by 56.8% in data encryption (7041 vs 3045), by 28.4% in floating-point math (25379 vs 18166), by 18.6% in integer math (35534 vs 28921), and by 17.7% in single-thread performance (3218 vs 2647). For general desktop snappiness and security-focused tasks, the 1215U is the stronger option.
Pick the 10105F if you need a desktop processor with a 65W TDP, DDR4 support, and a socketed platform. Pick the 1215U if you want a mobile processor with a 15W TDP, integrated graphics, and DDR5 support. Neither chip is a universal winner.
Where Each One Wins
The Core i3-10105F dominates the Cinebench suite across the board. In R15 multicore it scores 759 vs 669, a 13.5% win. R20 multicore sees 3165 vs 2790, a 13.4% advantage. R23 multicore shows 7537 vs 6644, also a 13.4% lead. Single-core results follow the same pattern: R15 at 107 vs 94 (13.8%), R20 at 446 vs 393 (13.5%), and R23 at 1064 vs 938 (13.4%). Geekbench multicore also goes to the 10105F with 4920 vs 4365, a 12.7% margin.
The 1215U's wins are concentrated in PassMark's specialized tests. Data encryption is its biggest triumph: 7041 vs 3045, a 56.8% blowout. Floating-point math goes 25379 vs 18166 (28.4% win), integer math goes 35534 vs 28921 (18.6% win), and find prime numbers goes 32 vs 25 (21.9% win). The 1215U also wins PassMark multithread (10472 vs 8930, a 14.7% lead) and single-thread (3218 vs 2647, a 17.7% lead). Geekbench single-core is nearly a tie, with the 1215U ahead by just 1% (1485 vs 1470).
The 10105F wins data compression (130647 vs 116705, 11.9%), extended instructions (8753 vs 6868, 27.4%), and random string sorting (16414 vs 13046, 25.8%). Physics is essentially a draw: 571 vs 583, a 2.1% edge for the 1215U.
Architecture Differences
The 10105F is a Comet Lake desktop part on Intel's 14 nm process, while the 1215U is an Alder Lake mobile chip on 10 nm. The 10105F has 4 cores and 8 threads; the 1215U has 6 cores and 8 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the 10105F's higher base clock of 3.70 GHz (vs the 1215U's 1200.00 MHz base) helps it win multi-threaded Cinebench tests. Both chips boost to 4.40 GHz.
Cache configurations differ significantly. The 10105F has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with 6 MB shared L3. The 1215U has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, with 10 MB shared L3. The larger L3 cache on the 1215U likely contributes to its PassMark math wins.
Memory support splits them: the 10105F supports only DDR4, while the 1215U supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the 10105F has a rated memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the 1215U's bandwidth is not specified. PCIe also differs: the 10105F offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes, the 1215U offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes.
The 1215U includes integrated UHD Graphics 64EU, while the 10105F has no integrated graphics. The 10105F uses Intel Socket 1200; the 1215U uses Intel BGA 1744, meaning the 10105F is replaceable while the 1215U is soldered. The 10105F launched on 2021-03-15 with a launch MSRP of $97; the 1215U released on 2022-02-22 with no listed MSRP.
FAQ
Q: Which processor is faster overall?
A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical: the 10105F scores 12644 and the 1215U scores 12604, a 0.3% difference. Both rank at the 67th percentile of all CPUs.
Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench rendering?
A: The 10105F wins every Cinebench test. In R23 multicore, it scores 7537 vs 6644, a 13.4% advantage. Single-core R23 also goes to the 10105F at 1064 vs 938.
Q: Does the 1215U have any significant advantages?
A: Yes. It leads by 56.8% in data encryption (7041 vs 3045), by 28.4% in floating-point math (25379 vs 18166), and by 17.7% in PassMark single-thread (3218 vs 2647).
Q: Can the 10105F be used without a separate graphics card?
A: No. The 10105F has no integrated graphics, unlike the 1215U which includes UHD Graphics 64EU.
Q: Which processor supports newer memory technology?
A: The 1215U supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the 10105F supports only DDR4. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.
Q: What are the power and platform differences?
A: The 10105F has a 65W TDP and uses Intel Socket 1200, while the 1215U has a 15W TDP and uses Intel BGA 1744.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The 10105F's biggest wins come in the Cinebench suite. R15 multicore: 759 vs 669, a 13.5% margin. R15 single-core: 107 vs 94, a 13.8% margin. R20 multicore: 3165 vs 2790 (13.4%). R20 single-core: 446 vs 393 (13.5%). R23 multicore: 7537 vs 6644 (13.4%). R23 single-core: 1064 vs 938 (13.4%). Geekbench multicore: 4920 vs 4365, a 12.7% win. PassMark extended instructions: 8753 vs 6868, a 27.4% win. PassMark random string sorting: 16414 vs 13046, a 25.8% win. PassMark data compression: 130647 vs 116705, an 11.9% win.
The 1215U's largest victory is data encryption: 7041 vs 3045, a crushing 56.8% lead. Floating-point math goes 25379 vs 18166, a 28.4% win. Integer math: 35534 vs 28921, an 18.6% win. Find prime numbers: 32 vs 25, a 21.9% win. PassMark multithread: 10472 vs 8930, a 14.7% win. PassMark single-thread: 3218 vs 2647, a 17.7% win. Geekbench single-core: 1485 vs 1470, a narrow 1% win. PassMark physics: 583 vs 571, a 2.1% win.
The pattern is clear: the 10105F wins all rendering and compression tests, while the 1215U wins math, encryption, and single-thread PassMark tests. The 1215U's PassMark multithread win (10472 vs 8930) is notable given that the 10105F wins all Cinebench multi-core tests, the 1215U's 6-core design excels in PassMark's specific multithread workload.
Specification Differences
The two chips differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The 10105F has 4 cores and 8 threads; the 1215U has 6 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are drastically different: the 10105F runs at 3.70 GHz, while the 1215U runs at 1200.00 MHz. Both boost to 4.40 GHz. TDPs reflect their market segments: the 10105F draws 65W, the 1215U draws 15W.
Process node differs: the 10105F uses 14 nm, the 1215U uses 10 nm. Cache sizes diverge: the 10105F has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core with 6 MB shared L3; the 1215U has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core with 10 MB shared L3. Memory support: the 10105F supports DDR4 only; the 1215U supports DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth: the 10105F is rated at 42.7 GB/s; the 1215U has no listed bandwidth.
PCIe lanes differ: the 10105F has Gen 3 with 16 lanes; the 1215U has Gen 4 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics: the 10105F has none; the 1215U has UHD Graphics 64EU. Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1200 for the 10105F vs Intel BGA 1744 for the 1215U. Release dates differ by nearly a year: 2021-03-15 for the 10105F, 2022-02-22 for the 1215U. The 10105F has a launch MSRP of $97; the 1215U has no listed MSRP. Both are active production parts, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory.