Intel Core i3-10105F vs Intel Xeon Gold 6348 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a starkly one-sided picture. The Intel Xeon Gold 6348 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, with margins that are almost uniform across the board. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Xeon scores 4,441 against the Core i3-10105F's 759, a delta of 485.1%. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 626 for the Xeon versus 107 for the i3, a 485% advantage. This consistency across both single- and multi-threaded workloads is telling — it is not merely a core-count victory, but a per-thread performance gap as well.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon Gold 6348 posts 18,507 in multi-core, while the Core i3-10105F manages 3,165 — again a 484.7% delta. The single-core R20 score of 2,612 versus 446 represents a 485.7% gap, which is the largest percentage difference in the entire comparison. In R23, the multi-core score of 44,066 for the Xeon dwarfs the i3's 7,537, and the single-core score of 6,221 versus 1,064 both land at a 484.7% delta. Interestingly, the percentage gaps are remarkably stable across every test, hovering around 485%. This suggests the performance relationship between these two CPUs is almost perfectly linear, regardless of the workload type or benchmark generation.

The sheer magnitude of these deltas is worth emphasizing. A 485% lead means the Xeon Gold 6348 delivers roughly five times the performance of the Core i3-10105F in every Cinebench metric recorded. There is no test where the i3 closes the gap, no workload where its higher base clock of 3.70 GHz (versus 2.60 GHz) or boost clock of 4.40 GHz (versus 3.50 GHz) translates into a competitive result. The i3's clock advantage is entirely overwhelmed by the Xeon's 28 cores and 56 threads versus the i3's 4 cores and 8 threads, and the Xeon's superior per-core throughput in these benchmarks.

It is also notable that the Core i3-10105F has additional benchmark data from Geekbench and PassMark that the Xeon Gold 6348 does not have in this dataset. However, for the head-to-head comparison, only the Cinebench results are shared, and those are uniformly decisive. The avgBenchmarkScore for the Xeon is 12,746, while the i3's is 12,644 — a surprisingly narrow overall average gap given the Cinebench results. This discrepancy arises because the average score pools different benchmark suites for each CPU. The Xeon's average is driven by its six Cinebench results, while the i3's average includes a much wider array of PassMark tests, many of which are single-threaded or lightly threaded workloads where the i3's high clock speeds help it compete. Nevertheless, in the tests where both CPUs are measured head-to-head, the Xeon is untouchable.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon Gold 6348 is the overwhelmingly faster processor in every shared benchmark. If your workload is heavily multi-threaded — rendering, simulation, data processing, virtualization — the Xeon's 28 cores and 56 threads deliver roughly 485% more Cinebench performance than the Core i3-10105F. There is no scenario in the benchmark data where the i3 wins, not even in single-core tests, despite its higher clock speeds.

However, the choice between these two is not about raw performance alone. The Xeon Gold 6348 is a server/workstation part on Intel Socket 4189, with eight-channel DDR4 memory support and 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The Core i3-10105F is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1200, with dual-channel memory and 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The Xeon targets a completely different platform and use case. The i3's only advantage in the data is its launch MSRP of $97, which is a fraction of what a 28-core Xeon platform would cost — but the price of the Xeon is not provided, so no direct cost comparison is possible.

For a builder assembling a high-end workstation or server, the Xeon Gold 6348 is the clear choice based on benchmark results. For a mainstream desktop build where the i3's clock speeds and lower core count suffice, the i3 is the sensible option — but only because the platform requirements differ, not because it wins any performance comparison. The percentileVsAllCpus for both is 67, meaning both CPUs sit at the same percentile among all tested processors, but this is a ranking across vastly different benchmark suites, so it should not be read as parity in performance.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6348 wins every multi-core Cinebench test. In R15, it scores 4,441 versus 759; in R20, 18,507 versus 3,165; in R23, 44,066 versus 7,537. The delta is 484.7–485.1% in favor of the Xeon.

Q: Does the Core i3-10105F win any benchmark?

A: No. In the shared head-to-head benchmarks, the Xeon Gold 6348 wins all six tests. The i3 has additional Geekbench and PassMark scores, but those are not directly compared to the Xeon in this dataset.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The Core i3-10105F has a higher base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Xeon Gold 6348 runs at 2.60 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. Despite this, the Xeon still wins single-core Cinebench tests by about 485%.

Q: What about the memory systems?

A: The Xeon Gold 6348 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s and ECC support. The Core i3-10105F supports dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC.

Q: Are both CPUs still in production?

A: Yes, both are listed as production status "Active". The Xeon Gold 6348 was released on April 5, 2021, and the Core i3-10105F on March 15, 2021.

Q: Do they use the same socket?

A: No. The Xeon Gold 6348 uses Intel Socket 4189, while the Core i3-10105F uses Intel Socket 1200. They are not interchangeable.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The Xeon Gold 6348 has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the Core i3-10105F has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.60 GHz for the Xeon and 3.70 GHz for the i3; boost clocks are 3.50 GHz versus 4.40 GHz. Thermal design power is 235 W for the Xeon and 65 W for the i3. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 4189, the i3 uses Intel Socket 1200.

Cache configurations are dramatically different. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core and 1 MB L2 per core, with a shared 42 MB L3. The i3 also has 64 KB L1 per core, but only 256 KB L2 per core, and a shared 6 MB L3. Memory support: the Xeon is eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support; the i3 is dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s and no ECC. PCIe also differs — the Xeon offers Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only), while the i3 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon is a server/workstation part; the i3 is a desktop part. The i3 has a launch MSRP of $97; the Xeon has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon Gold 6348 is built on Intel's 10 nm process node, while the Core i3-10105F uses the older 14 nm process. The Xeon's architecture is Ice Lake, specifically Ice Lake-SP, part of the Xeon Gold generation. The i3 uses Comet Lake, specifically Comet Lake-R, part of the Core 10th Gen series. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the process node difference is significant — 10 nm versus 14 nm — which contributes to the Xeon's ability to pack 28 cores into a single die while maintaining higher per-core efficiency in the benchmark results.

The cache hierarchy reflects the architectural divergence. The Xeon's L3 cache of 42 MB shared is seven times larger than the i3's 6 MB shared L3. Per-core L2 is also larger on the Xeon at 1 MB versus 256 KB. These larger caches, combined with the eight-channel memory controller, are typical of server-class architectures designed for high-throughput workloads. The i3's smaller caches and dual-channel memory are sufficient for desktop tasks but create a structural disadvantage in memory-bound and cache-sensitive applications.

Neither CPU includes integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon's part number is SRKHPCD8068904572204, while the i3's is SRH8V. The i3's market segment is Desktop, while the Xeon's is Server/Workstation, which explains the platform-level differences in memory channels, PCIe lanes, and ECC support.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon Gold 6348 wins every benchmark where the two are directly compared. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 — both multi-core and single-core — the Xeon leads by approximately 485%. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that relies on sustained multi-threaded throughput, such as 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific computation, or running multiple virtual machines. Its 28 cores and 56 threads, combined with 204.8 GB/s of eight-channel memory bandwidth, are built for exactly these scenarios. The 42 MB L3 cache and 1 MB per-core L2 further support large working sets.

The Core i3-10105F's wins are not in the head-to-head data. Its strengths lie in its lower TDP of 65 W versus 235 W, its higher clock speeds, and its desktop-oriented platform. For a light desktop workload — office productivity, web browsing, light coding — the i3's 4 cores and 8 threads at up to 4.40 GHz are perfectly adequate. It also has a much simpler platform requirement: dual-channel memory, 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, and Socket 1200. The i3's PassMark scores, while not compared directly to the Xeon, show solid single-thread performance (2,647 in single-thread) and decent integer math (28,921), which are useful for everyday tasks.

The decision, then, comes down to platform and workload. If you need raw compute density and are building a server or workstation, the Xeon Gold 6348 is the only sensible choice — its benchmark dominance is total. If you are building a modest desktop and do not need 28 cores, the i3 offers a lower-power, lower-platform-cost alternative, though its performance in the shared benchmarks is far behind. The data does not support any scenario where the i3 outperforms the Xeon in the tested workloads, but the i3's existence is justified by its entirely different market segment and platform requirements.