Intel Core i3-10305T vs Intel Core i3-9100F Comparison

The Intel Core i3-9100F and Intel Core i3-10305T are both 14 nm quad-core desktop parts, but they target very different system niches. The 9100F is an end-of-life Coffee Lake chip for Socket 1151, while the 10305T is an active Comet Lake-R part for Socket 1200 with a 35 W TDP. Benchmark data shows a consistent and substantial performance advantage for the 10305T across every single tested workload, making this comparison less about raw speed and more about platform compatibility and feature trade-offs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i3-10305T wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the margin is remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 10305T scores 669 against the 9100F's 574, a 14.2% advantage. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 94 versus 80, a 14.9% lead for the 10305T. These are not isolated wins; the delta is nearly identical across the entire benchmark suite.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the 10305T scores 2791 in multicore versus 2392 for the 9100F, again a 14.3% gap. The R20 single-core test shows 393 versus 337, a 14.2% difference. The trend holds firm in Cinebench R23, where the 10305T delivers 6647 multicore points against 5697, and 938 single-core points against 804. Both R23 deltas sit at exactly 14.3%.

What does this consistency mean? It suggests the performance gap is structural, not workload-dependent. The 10305T is not merely faster in one specific task; it is uniformly faster across all rendering and compute tests. The data shows no scenario where the 9100F closes the gap. In relative terms, the 10305T is roughly 14% faster in every measured category. That is a decisive, repeatable margin.

Average benchmark scores reinforce the picture. The 9100F averages 1903 points, while the 10305T averages 1922. The 9100F's closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 3 5125C, sits at 1902 (0.1% delta), and the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 is at 1907 (-0.2%). The 10305T's nearest competitor is the Intel Core i7-6700T at 1918 (0.2% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 3 7320U at 1916 (0.3%). Both CPUs rank at the 43rd percentile among all CPUs, indicating they occupy a similar mid-low tier in the overall performance landscape, but the 10305T sits at the higher end of that tier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 14 nm process node and Intel foundry, but they belong to different architectural generations. The 9100F uses Coffee Lake, specifically the Coffee Lake Refresh generation, while the 10305T uses Comet Lake, specifically Comet Lake-R. This generation gap explains the performance delta despite identical core counts.

Core counts are the same at four, but thread counts differ significantly. The 9100F has 4 threads, meaning no Hyper-Threading. The 10305T has 8 threads, doubling the logical processor count. This is the primary driver of the multicore performance advantage, though the single-core gap shows architectural improvements also matter.

Clock speeds tell an interesting story. The 9100F has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost of 4.20 GHz. The 10305T has a lower base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost of 4.00 GHz. Despite lower clocks, the 10305T wins every benchmark. This is a clear demonstration that IPC (instructions per clock) and thread count outweigh raw frequency in these tests. The 10305T does more work per cycle, and it has twice the threads for parallel tasks.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. L3 cache, however, is 6 MB shared on the 9100F and 8 MB shared on the 10305T. The extra 2 MB of L3 cache helps the 10305T keep more data closer to the cores, reducing latency in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory bandwidth also favors the 10305T. It supports dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s theoretical bandwidth, versus 38.4 GB/s for the 9100F. Both support DDR4 memory, but the 10305T has a higher ceiling. PCIe support is identical: Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only) for both.

The integrated graphics situation is a major differentiator. The 9100F has no integrated graphics, hence the "F" suffix. The 10305T includes UHD Graphics 630. This means the 10305T can run with no discrete GPU, while the 9100F requires one for any display output. ECC memory support also differs: the 9100F supports ECC, while the 10305T does not.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the Intel Core i3-10305T is the faster processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons with margins between 14.2% and 14.9%. It has twice the threads, more L3 cache, higher memory bandwidth, and integrated graphics. There is no performance metric in the FACT PACK where the 9100F comes out ahead.

Who should pick the 9100F? Strictly from the data, only someone who requires ECC memory support or who already owns a Socket 1151 motherboard. The 9100F supports ECC, a feature the 10305T lacks. For a budget build where ECC is mandatory, the 9100F is the only option here. It also has a higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz versus 4.00 GHz, though this does not translate into any benchmark win.

Who should pick the 10305T? Almost everyone else. It is faster in single-core and multicore tests, has integrated graphics for systems without a discrete GPU, and offers 8 threads for better multitasking and threaded workloads. Its 35 W TDP also suggests lower power draw than the 9100F's 65 W TDP, though no power consumption figures are provided to confirm this.

The 10305T is the superior processor by every benchmark metric. The 9100F's only saving graces are ECC support and the older, potentially cheaper, Socket 1151 platform. For new builds, the 10305T is the clear choice based on performance data alone.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-9100F | Intel Core i3-10305T |

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

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Comet Lake |

| Codename | Coffee Lake | Comet Lake-R |

| Generation | Core i3 (Coffee Lake Refresh) | Core i3 (Comet Lake) |

| Die Size | 126 mm² | Not specified |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2019-04-22 | 2021-03-15 |

| Launch MSRP | $122 | $143 |

| Part Number | SRF6NSRF7W | SRH3M |

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i3-10305T wins all multicore tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 6647 versus 5697 for the 9100F, a 14.3% advantage. The R20 multicore result is 2791 versus 2392, also a 14.3% gap.

Q: Does the 9100F have integrated graphics?

A: No. The 9100F has no integrated graphics, which is what the "F" suffix denotes. The 10305T, in contrast, includes UHD Graphics 630, allowing it to output display without a discrete GPU.

Q: How do the thread counts compare?

A: The 9100F has 4 threads (4 cores, no Hyper-Threading). The 10305T has 8 threads (4 cores with Hyper-Threading). This doubles the logical processor count for the 10305T and is a key factor in its multicore performance lead.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The 9100F supports ECC memory. The 10305T does not. This is a critical differentiator for users who require error-correcting memory for data integrity.

Q: Are these CPUs on the same socket?

A: No. The 9100F uses Intel Socket 1151, while the 10305T uses Intel Socket 1200. They are not interchangeable, and each requires a matching motherboard.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The 9100F has an average benchmark score of 1903, while the 10305T averages 1922. Both rank at the 43rd percentile among all CPUs, but the 10305T sits slightly higher in that tier.