Intel Core i3-10105F vs Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a surprisingly one-sided contest, with the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL taking 14 of 17 head-to-head wins. The most consistent margin appears across the Cinebench suite, where the Ultra 3 leads by nearly identical percentages in every test. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ultra 3 scores 881 against 759 for the i3-10105F, a 16.1% advantage. Single-core R15 shows a 15.9% lead (124 vs 107). This pattern repeats in R20 multicore (3671 vs 3165, 16% delta) and R20 single-core (518 vs 446, 16.1% delta). Cinebench R23 multicore delivers 8742 for the Ultra 3 versus 7537, again a 16% gap, and single-core R23 shows 1234 against 1064, another 16% delta. The consistency of this margin across all six Cinebench tests suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than workload-specific luck.

The Passmark suite tells a more varied story. The Ultra 3 wins decisively in data encryption, scoring 6354 against 3045, a massive 108.7% advantage. Prime number finding shows a 76% lead (44 vs 25), and floating point math is 69.3% ahead (30750 vs 18166). Integer math favors the Ultra 3 by 42.4% (41171 vs 28921). The single-thread Passmark tests show a 27.8% edge for the Ultra 3 (3382 vs 2647), which is a larger single-core gap than the Cinebench numbers would suggest. Physics simulation also goes to the Ultra 3, 718 vs 571, a 25.7% margin, and the multithread Passmark score shows a 15.2% lead (10285 vs 8930).

However, the i3-10105F fights back in three specific workloads. Data compression heavily favors the i3, with 130647 against 93961, a 28.1% deficit for the Ultra 3. Extended instructions show the i3 ahead by 35.6% (8753 vs 5634). Random string sorting also goes to the i3, 16414 vs 11179, a 31.9% difference. These three wins are not random noise; they cluster around memory-intensive or instruction-heavy tasks where the i3's higher base clock and different memory architecture appear to matter. The i3 also holds a slight overall average score edge in its own rival group, though the comparison pool differs.

Looking at the broader database context, the Ultra 3 sits at the 68th percentile of all CPUs, while the i3-10105F lands at the 67th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 13061 and 12644 respectively, a 3.3% gap in the Ultra 3's favor. The nearest rivals for the Ultra 3 include the Intel Core i5-9400F (0.2% slower), the i7-10750H (0.3% slower), and the i7-7700K (1.7% faster). The i3's rivals include the Atom x7809C (0.3% slower), i3-1215U (0.3% slower), and EPYC 7502 (0.5% faster). These numbers place both chips in similar overall performance territory, despite the head-to-head results showing a clear winner in most tests.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL as the stronger processor in the majority of measured workloads. Its 16% lead across every Cinebench iteration, combined with 15.2% to 108.7% advantages in most Passmark tests, makes it the choice for users who prioritize rendering, encryption, floating-point math, and general multithreaded productivity. The single-thread Passmark win of 27.8% is particularly notable, as it contradicts the expectation that a 4.40 GHz boost clock on the i3 would dominate a 4.20 GHz chip. The Ultra 3's architecture evidently extracts more work per clock cycle.

The i3-10105F is not without justification, however. Its wins in data compression (28.1% faster), extended instructions (35.6% faster), and random string sorting (31.9% faster) indicate that certain memory-bound or SIMD-heavy tasks benefit from its design. If a user's workflow consists primarily of compression, encryption with older instruction sets, or sorting large datasets, the i3's specific strengths could make it the more practical choice despite its overall deficit.

For balanced workloads, the Ultra 3's 14 out of 17 wins and higher average score (13061 vs 12644) make it the data-supported recommendation. The i3's 65 W TDP versus the Ultra 3's 15 W TDP also suggests the Ultra 3 achieves its results with substantially lower power draw, a factor that matters in thermally constrained systems. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking headroom is not a differentiator.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design eras. The Ultra 3 105UL uses the Meteor Lake architecture on a 7 nm process node, while the i3-10105F is built on Comet Lake using a 14 nm node. The core counts differ significantly: the Ultra 3 has 8 cores and 10 threads, versus 4 cores and 8 threads for the i3. This hybrid core arrangement on the Ultra 3 likely explains its multithreaded dominance, as it has double the physical cores available for parallel workloads.

Cache hierarchies diverge substantially. The Ultra 3 offers 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 10 MB shared L3. The i3 provides 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. The Ultra 3's larger per-core L2 is particularly interesting, as it may contribute to the single-thread performance advantage despite a lower boost clock. The i3's smaller cache footprint and older core design appear to limit its ability to keep more data close to the execution units.

Memory support separates the two further. The Ultra 3 supports DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the i3 uses DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s. This bandwidth difference is likely a major factor in the Ultra 3's wins in encryption (108.7% faster) and floating-point math (69.3% faster), which often scale with memory throughput. Both run dual-channel memory, but the newer standard gives the Ultra 3 a clear theoretical advantage.

PCIe connectivity differs in lanes and generation. The Ultra 3 provides Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes, while the i3 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The i3's higher lane count could benefit systems with many expansion cards, though the Ultra 3's newer generation provides more bandwidth per lane. Integrated graphics exist only on the Ultra 3, which carries Arc Xe-LPG 48EU; the i3-10105F has no integrated graphics at all, requiring a discrete GPU to display output. The i3 also relies on an older Socket 1200 platform, while the Ultra 3 uses Socket 1851.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL wins 14 out of 17 head-to-head tests, including all six Cinebench benchmarks and the majority of Passmark tests. The Intel Core i3-10105F wins 3 tests: data compression, extended instructions, and random string sorting.

Q: How large is the single-core performance difference?

A: The Ultra 3 leads by 15.9% in Cinebench R15 single-core, 16.1% in R20 single-core, and 16% in R23 single-core. The Passmark single-thread test shows an even larger 27.8% advantage for the Ultra 3.

Q: Is the i3-10105F better at any specific workload?

A: Yes. The i3 wins data compression by 28.1%, extended instructions by 35.6%, and random string sorting by 31.9%. These are the only three areas where it outperforms the Ultra 3 in direct comparison.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Ultra 3 has an average benchmark score of 13061, while the i3-10105F averages 12644. This represents a 3.3% overall gap in favor of the Ultra 3.

Q: Do the processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The Ultra 3 supports DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the i3 supports DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory configurations.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Ultra 3 includes integrated graphics, specifically Arc Xe-LPG 48EU. The i3-10105F has no integrated graphics, meaning it requires a separate graphics card for any display output.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL dominates in rendering and compute-heavy tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 8742 against 7537 makes it the clear pick for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales across cores. The 108.7% encryption advantage (6354 vs 3045) points to strong cryptography performance, while the 69.3% floating-point lead (30750 vs 18166) suits scientific computing and financial modeling. Prime number finding at 76% faster (44 vs 25) and integer math at 42.4% faster (41171 vs 28921) round out a broad computational edge. The 15.2% multithread win (10285 vs 8930) and 25.7% physics advantage (718 vs 571) further cement its position for multithreaded productivity and simulation tasks. The 27.8% single-thread Passmark win (3382 vs 2647) also makes it the better choice for lightly threaded applications that benefit from high per-core efficiency.

The Intel Core i3-10105F claims its territory in specific memory-intensive and legacy instruction workloads. Data compression at 130647 versus 93961 (28.1% faster) makes it the better pick for file archiving, backup tools, and compression-heavy server tasks. Extended instructions at 8753 versus 5634 (35.6% faster) suggests an edge in older SIMD-heavy code that has not been optimized for newer architectures. Random string sorting at 16414 versus 11179 (31.9% faster) could translate to faster database indexing or text processing operations. Its 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes also make it more suitable for systems with many add-in cards, despite the slower generation. The higher 65 W TDP indicates less efficient power use, but for users who prioritize these specific workloads and already own DDR4 platforms, the i3 remains defensible.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL | Intel Core i3-10105F |

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

| Series | Core Ultra Series 1 | Core 10th Gen |

| Cores | 8 | 4 |

| Threads | 10 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Architecture | Meteor Lake | Comet Lake |

| Codename | Meteor Lake-PS | Comet Lake-R |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 14 nm |

| L1 Cache | 112 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 10 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG 48EU | None |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2021-03-15 |

| Launch MSRP | $295 | $97 |

| Part Number | SRN9D | SRH8V |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 68th | 67th |

| Average Benchmark Score | 13061 | 12644 |