Intel Core i3-10110Y vs Intel Core i3-4330T Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core i3-10110Y compare to the Intel Core i3-4330T in overall benchmark performance?

A: The two processors are statistically identical in average benchmark score. Both the Core i3-10110Y and the Core i3-4330T post an average score of 908, and the head-to-head data shows a 0% delta across every Cinebench test. Both also sit at the 24th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The Core i3-4330T has a base clock of 3.00 GHz, while the Core i3-10110Y has a base clock of 1.00 GHz. However, the Core i3-10110Y features a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, whereas the Core i3-4330T has no boost clock listed. This suggests the 10110Y relies on turbo headroom, while the 4330T operates at a fixed rate.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the Core i3-4330T wins?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark data lists the Core i3-10110Y as the winner in all 5 tests, though every delta is 0%. The closest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 10110Y scores 2640 versus 2639 for the 4330T — a one-point difference.

Q: Which processor uses more power?

A: The Core i3-4330T has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Core i3-10110Y has a TDP of 9 watts. This makes the 10110Y dramatically more power-efficient on paper, which aligns with its mobile market segment versus the 4330T's desktop positioning.

Q: Do these processors share the same socket?

A: No. The Core i3-10110Y uses Intel BGA 1440, while the Core i3-4330T uses Intel Socket 1150. They are not interchangeable, and each requires a different platform.

Q: How do these chips compare to nearby rivals?

A: Both processors are directly tied with the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U at an average score of 908. They trail the AMD PRO A12-9800E by 0.3% (910 vs. 908) and beat the AMD A10-7860K by 0.4% (908 vs. 904). These are extremely tight margins, indicating near-parity across this performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The Core i3-10110Y and Core i3-4330T come from different Intel generations and design philosophies. The 10110Y is built on Comet Lake, a 14 nm process, while the 4330T uses the older Haswell architecture on a 22 nm node. This generational gap shows up in the transistor and die details: the 4330T lists 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die, whereas the 10110Y has no such figures provided. The smaller process node on the 10110Y helps explain its dramatically lower 9 W TDP versus the 4330T's 35 W.

Both processors share the same core and thread configuration: 2 cores and 4 threads. Cache hierarchies are also identical per-core — 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 — with a shared 4 MB L3. Memory support is the same for both: DDR3. However, the 4330T adds a dual-channel memory bus and PCIe Gen 3 support, while the 10110Y lists neither a memory bus nor PCIe generation.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The 10110Y comes with UHD Graphics, while the 4330T is equipped with Intel HD 4600. The 10110Y targets the mobile segment (Intel BGA 1440 socket), whereas the 4330T is a desktop part (Intel Socket 1150). The 10110Y also has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, which the 4330T lacks entirely; the older chip runs at a fixed 3.00 GHz base.

There is a notable release-date gap. The 4330T launched in August 2013, while the 10110Y arrived in August 2019 — six years apart. Despite this, both processors are locked (multiplier unlocked: false), and neither supports ECC memory. The 4330T has a part number (SR1NK), while the 10110Y does not. Production status also differs: the 10110Y is listed as "Active," whereas the 4330T has no production status listed.

The architecture differences here are striking because they show two very different design goals. The 10110Y uses a modern, efficient node with a high boost clock and low TDP for thin-and-light laptops. The 4330T uses a larger, older node with a higher sustained base clock and more platform features (dual-channel memory, PCIe Gen 3) for a desktop environment. Yet the benchmark results suggest these architectural differences translate into almost no performance gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a remarkable story: the Core i3-10110Y is declared the winner in all five Cinebench tests, but every single margin is 0%. This is not a case of one chip dominating another; it is a case of near-total performance parity.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both processors score exactly 265. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where both hit 1108. Single-core performance in Cinebench R20 is also identical at 156 for each chip. The pattern continues in Cinebench R23 single-core, with both scoring 372.

The only test where the scores deviate at all is Cinebench R23 multi-core. Here, the Core i3-10110Y scores 2640, while the Core i3-4330T scores 2639 — a single-point difference. This yields a deltaPct of 0, but it is technically the 10110Y's narrowest victory.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this parity. Both processors have an average score of 908, and both sit at the 24th percentile of all CPUs. In the nearest-rivals data, the two chips are listed as each other's closest competitors, with a 0% delta. The AMD Ryzen 3 3250U also ties them at 908, while the AMD PRO A12-9800E is 0.3% ahead (910) and the AMD A10-7860K is 0.4% behind (904).

What makes these results curious is the underlying hardware. The 10110Y has a 4.00 GHz boost clock but a 1.00 GHz base clock, while the 4330T runs at a constant 3.00 GHz. The 10110Y also benefits from a newer 14 nm process versus the 4330T's 22 nm node. Despite these differences, the benchmark scores show no practical advantage for either chip. The data suggests that whatever efficiency gains the 10110Y achieves through its newer architecture and higher boost clock are offset by the 4330T's higher sustained base frequency.

It is also worth remembering the 10110Y wins all five head-to-head tests by the official designation, even though four of those wins are exact ties. This means the "winner" label is essentially arbitrary in most cases, with only the R23 multi-core test showing any measurable (if negligible) separation.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: these two processors are performance twins. With identical average scores of 908, identical 24th-percentile rankings, and four out of five benchmark tests ending in exact ties, there is no performance-based reason to choose one over the other.

The decision comes down to platform and use case. The Core i3-10110Y is a mobile part with a 9 W TDP, designed for the Intel BGA 1440 socket. It offers a 4.00 GHz boost clock and UHD Graphics, making it suited for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency is paramount. The Core i3-4330T is a desktop part with a 35 W TDP, a fixed 3.00 GHz clock, and Intel HD 4600 graphics, targeting the Intel Socket 1150 platform. It adds dual-channel memory and PCIe Gen 3 support, which could matter in a desktop build.

For a user building or upgrading a desktop system, the 4330T is the only option that fits Socket 1150. For someone buying a mobile device, the 10110Y is the only choice given its BGA 1440 socket. The performance parity means neither user sacrifices benchmark scores by going with their respective platform.

The production status also favors the 10110Y, which is listed as "Active," while the 4330T has no production status listed. The 10110Y is also six years newer, which may matter for platform longevity and feature support. However, the 4330T's dual-channel memory bus and PCIe Gen 3 support give it a platform-level edge that the 10110Y cannot match.

The verdict is straightforward: pick based on socket and power requirements, not performance. The benchmarks show no meaningful difference between these two chips.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Core i3-10110Y and the Intel Core i3-4330T:

• Base Clock: 1000.00 MHz (10110Y) vs. 3000.00 MHz (4330T)
• Boost Clock: 4.00 GHz (10110Y) vs. none (4330T)
• TDP: 9 W (10110Y) vs. 35 W (4330T)
• Socket: Intel BGA 1440 (10110Y) vs. Intel Socket 1150 (4330T)
• Architecture: Comet Lake (10110Y) vs. Haswell (4330T)
• Process Node: 14 nm (10110Y) vs. 22 nm (4330T)
• Transistors: Not listed (10110Y) vs. 1,400 million (4330T)
• Die Size: Not listed (10110Y) vs. 177 mm² (4330T)
• Memory Bus: Not listed (10110Y) vs. Dual-channel (4330T)
• PCIe: Not listed (10110Y) vs. Gen 3 (4330T)
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics (10110Y) vs. Intel HD 4600 (4330T)
• Market Segment: Mobile (10110Y) vs. Desktop (4330T)
• Production Status: Active (10110Y) vs. not listed (4330T)
• Release Date: 2019-08-20 (10110Y) vs. 2013-08-31 (4330T)
• Part Number: Not listed (10110Y) vs. SR1NK (4330T)

Identical specifications include: 2 cores, 4 threads, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 4 MB shared L3, DDR3 memory support, no ECC support, and locked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i3-10110Y wins on paper in all five head-to-head benchmarks, but the margins are zero in four cases and a single point in the fifth. In practical terms, this is not a meaningful victory. The 10110Y's real advantages lie outside raw compute: its 9 W TDP makes it far more suitable for fanless or low-power mobile designs, and its Active production status means it is still available for new devices. The 4.00 GHz boost clock also gives it a theoretical peak-performance advantage, even if that advantage does not materialize in the Cinebench results.

The Core i3-4330T wins on platform features. It offers dual-channel memory support and PCIe Gen 3, both of which are absent from the 10110Y's specification sheet. Its 3.00 GHz base clock is also three times higher than the 10110Y's base, which could translate to more consistent performance in workloads that do not benefit from turbo boost. The 4330T's larger 35 W TDP suggests it can sustain its clock speed under load without thermal throttling, a consideration for desktop builds with adequate cooling.

Breaking down by workload, the benchmark data shows no area where either chip decisively outperforms the other. Multi-core rendering (Cinebench R15, R20, R23) results in near-identical scores. Single-core performance (Cinebench R20, R23 single-core) is also a dead heat. This means users should not expect any application-level advantage from either processor.

The use-case split is therefore platform-driven, not performance-driven. The 10110Y wins for mobile computing, low-power systems, and any scenario where the 9 W TDP is a critical constraint. The 4330T wins for desktop systems on Socket 1150, particularly those that can leverage dual-channel memory or PCIe Gen 3 peripherals. For everything else, the data shows these two chips are interchangeable in performance, and the choice should be made on socket compatibility and power budget.