Intel Core i3-10105T vs Intel Core i5-8259U Comparison

The Intel Core i5-8259U and Intel Core i3-10105T sit in the same statistical neighborhood: identical percentile placement (46th) against all CPUs in the database, identical core and thread counts, and Cinebench results separated by less than one percent in five of six tests. Yet the recorded data reveals one striking divergence in Geekbench multi-core that flips the narrative, plus a fundamental platform split: one is a mobile part soldered to a BGA package and end-of-life, the other an active desktop chip on Socket 1200. Which one makes sense depends less on raw throughput, which is nearly identical, and more on memory bandwidth, graphics, and whether the system needs to be serviceable.

The Verdict

The data points to the i3-10105T for almost anyone building or buying today. It is an active production part on a standard desktop socket, it carries a higher base clock (3.00 GHz versus 2.30 GHz), it supports more memory bandwidth (42.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s), and it wins six of eight head-to-head benchmarks, including a 4.6 percent single-core Geekbench advantage (1265 versus 1207). The i5-8259U, meanwhile, is end-of-life and uses the soldered Intel BGA 1526 package, meaning no upgrades and no replacements outside the original laptop or mini-PC it shipped in.

The i5's case rests on two pillars. First, Geekbench multi-core, where it scores 4168 against 3649, a 14.2 percent lead that is by far the largest gap anywhere in this comparison. Second, its integrated graphics: Iris Pro Plus 655 against the i3's UHD Graphics 630. For a thin-and-light system where the iGPU does real work, that pairing matters. But for a desktop with Socket 1200, where a discrete GPU is trivially added, the i3's platform advantages dominate.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-10105T sweeps Cinebench. It takes R15 multi-core 670 to 667, R20 multi-core 2795 to 2781, R20 single-core 394 to 392, R23 multi-core 6656 to 6622, and R23 single-core 939 to 934. None of these margins exceeds half a percent. In practice, sustained rendering workloads are a wash between the two, which is remarkable given one is a 28 W mobile chip and the other a 35 W desktop part.

Where the i3 separates itself is Geekbench single-core: 1265 versus 1207, a 4.6 percent edge that reflects its newer Comet Lake architecture and slightly higher boost clock (3.90 GHz versus 3.80 GHz). For snappy, lightly threaded desktop use, web browsing, office work, single-threaded applications, the i3 is measurably the quicker chip.

The i5-8259U's one significant win is Geekbench multi-core: 4168 versus 3649, 14.2 percent in its favor. The database invites questions here. Why would a mobile chip with a lower base clock beat a desktop part by double digits in Geekbench multi-core while tying it in every Cinebench multi-core run? Plausible explanations include better sustained all-core behavior in the specific system tested, or Geekbench's shorter, burst-friendlier workload favoring the i5's characteristics. Either way, if the workload profile resembles Geekbench's mix of parallelizable tasks, the i5 is the stronger performer on record.

Architecture Differences

Both chips are Intel 14 nm products with 4 cores, 8 threads, and identical cache hierarchies: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. Both support DDR4 on a dual-channel bus, lack ECC, offer PCIe 3.0 with 16 CPU lanes, and have locked multipliers.

The differences are generational and segment-based. The i5-8259U is Coffee Lake-U, released April 2018, a mobile design on the BGA 1526 package with a 28 W TDP and a 126 mm² die. Its claim to fame is the Iris Pro Plus 655 integrated GPU, the strongest graphics offering between the two. The i3-10105T is Comet Lake-R, released March 2021, a desktop design on Socket 1200 with a 35 W TDP. Its iGPU is the more conventional UHD Graphics 630, but its memory subsystem delivers 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth versus 38.4 GB/s for the i5, a 4.3 GB/s advantage for the newer platform.

The status difference may matter most: the i3 is active production, the i5 is end-of-life. For long-term system planning, spare availability, and platform support, Socket 1200 is the only forward-looking choice here.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: The i3-10105T wins six of eight recorded benchmarks, but its margins are tiny in Cinebench (0.4 to 0.5 percent). Its only meaningful lead is Geekbench single-core at 4.6 percent. The i5 counters with a 14.2 percent Geekbench multi-core win. On average benchmark score, the i5's 2108 edges the i3's 2058.

Q: Do these CPUs have the same core count?

A: Yes. Both are 4-core, 8-thread parts with identical cache layouts: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3.

Q: Which has better integrated graphics?

A: The i5-8259U, on paper. It carries Iris Pro Plus 655, while the i3-10105T has UHD Graphics 630. The database records the names but no graphics benchmark scores, so the magnitude of the gap is not established here.

Q: Can either CPU be overclocked?

A: No. Both have locked multipliers.

Q: Which CPU is still in production?

A: Only the i3-10105T. The i5-8259U is listed as end-of-life; the i3 is an active part.

Q: Which memory bandwidth is higher?

A: The i3-10105T, at 42.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s, both on dual-channel DDR4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Starting with Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3 posts 670 against the i5's 667, a 0.4 percent gap that is statistically meaningless. Single-core R15 is a dead heat at 94 for both. Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern: 2795 versus 2781 multi-core and 394 versus 392 single-core, both 0.5 percent in the i3's favor. Cinebench R23 lands the same way, 6656 versus 6622 multi-core and 939 versus 934 single-core, again 0.5 percent to the i3.

Then the data takes a sharp turn. In Geekbench multi-core the i5 scores 4168 against the i3's 3649, a 14.2 percent victory that dwarfs everything else in this comparison. It is worth pausing on that number: a margin twenty-eight times larger than any Cinebench gap, in the opposite direction. The i3's response comes in Geekbench single-core, where its 1265 beats the i5's 1207 by 4.6 percent, its only win of real consequence.

The overall picture is one of near-parity with two outliers. For rendering, the chips are interchangeable. For bursty mixed workloads, the i5's Geekbench multi-core result suggests hidden strength. For responsive single-thread performance, the i3 holds a modest but consistent edge, backed up by its wins across every Cinebench single-core test.

Context from the database reinforces how evenly matched these two are. The i5's average benchmark score of 2108 puts it within a fraction of a percent of rivals like the Intel Core i5-8500T (2110, a 0.1 percent gap), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G (2101, 0.3 percent), the Intel Xeon E-2224G (2117, 0.4 percent), and the Intel Core i3-8350K (2096, 0.6 percent). The i3's average of 2058 is similarly bracketed by the Intel Core i7-8705G (2058, dead even), the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G (2059, 0.1 percent), the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 (2055, 0.2 percent), and the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 (2067, 0.4 percent). Both chips occupy the exact same percentile band, the 46th, against the full CPU population.

Specification Differences

The two differ in far fewer places than their two-generation gap might suggest. Same cores, same threads, same caches, same process node, same foundry, same PCIe configuration, same ECC support (none), same memory type, same locked multiplier.

What actually differs:

• Architecture: Coffee Lake (i5) versus Comet Lake (i3)
• Codename: Coffee Lake-U versus Comet Lake-R
• Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop
• Socket: Intel BGA 1526 (soldered) versus Intel Socket 1200
• TDP: 28 W versus 35 W
• Base clock: 2.30 GHz versus 3.00 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.80 GHz versus 3.90 GHz
• Memory bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s
• Integrated graphics: Iris Pro Plus 655 versus UHD Graphics 630
• Die size: 126 mm² for the i5; not recorded for the i3
• Production status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release date: April 2018 versus March 2021
• Launch MSRP: $320 for the i5-8259U versus $134 for the i3-10105T

That final line of difference, the clock behavior, deserves the last word analytically. The i5 offers a much wider boost range, climbing from a 2.30 GHz base to 3.80 GHz, while the i3 runs a narrow band from 3.00 to 3.90 GHz. The i3 is therefore the more predictable performer, rarely far from its peak; the i5 is the more variable one, capable of the same top-end speed but with more room to fall back under sustained thermal constraints. The benchmark data, showing them within half a percent across Cinebench, suggests both manage their envelopes well, and the choice ultimately reduces to platform: soldered mobile with stronger graphics, or socketed desktop with higher sustained clocks and an active production status.