Intel Core i3-10320 vs Intel Core i7-9750H Comparison

The Intel Core i7-9750H and Intel Core i3-10320 are closely matched in overall average benchmark scores, with the i7-9750H holding a marginal 0.2% lead over the i3-10320 (14886 vs 14852). Despite this statistical tie in aggregate performance, the data reveals a clear split: the i7-9750H dominates in multi-threaded and compute-heavy workloads, winning 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the i3-10320 counters decisively in single-threaded throughput and a few specialized tasks. The i7-9750H is the stronger choice for content creation, compilation, and floating-point math, while the i3-10320 is better suited for lightly-threaded applications where raw per-core speed matters most.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-9750H establishes its advantage in every Cinebench test, both multi-core and single-core. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 8973 against the i3-10320's 8486, a 5.7% margin that holds consistently across R15, R20, and R23 versions. This pattern extends to PassMark integer math (37822 vs 31071, a 21.7% lead) and floating-point math (23343 vs 19483, a 19.8% lead). The i7-9750H also wins in data compression (150443 vs 140255, +7.3%), data encryption (3756 vs 3458, +8.6%), and random string sorting (19862 vs 17821, +11.5%). Its multithread score of 10671 is 6.9% ahead of the i3-10320's 9982.

The i3-10320 wins in exactly four areas, but two of those are the same single-thread metric. Its PassMark single-thread score of 2841 beats the i7-9750H's 2404 by 15.4%, a substantial gap for single-core responsiveness. It also wins PassMark extended instructions (9284 vs 9187, +1%) and PassMark physics (689 vs 670, +2.8%). The extended instructions result is notable because it shows the i3-10320 can handle SIMD-heavy code slightly better despite its overall compute deficit. The physics win is small but consistent with the i3-10320's higher base clock of 3.80 GHz versus 2.60 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and target different market segments. The i7-9750H uses the Coffee Lake architecture (codename Coffee Lake-HR) and is a mobile part on the Intel BGA 1440 socket, while the i3-10320 uses the Comet Lake architecture and is a desktop part on the Intel Socket 1200. Both are built on Intel's 14 nm process, but the i7-9750H has a die size of 149 mm², whereas the i3-10320's die size is not listed.

Core counts differ significantly: the i7-9750H has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the i3-10320 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This 50% core advantage explains the i7-9750H's multi-core wins. Cache configuration also differs: the i7-9750H has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-10320 has 8 MB. Both have identical L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (256 KB per core) caches. The i7-9750H's base clock is 2.60 GHz, which is much lower than the i3-10320's 3.80 GHz, but the i7-9750H boosts to 4.50 GHz versus the i3-10320's 4.60 GHz. The i3-10320 has the higher top clock, but the i7-9750H's additional cores and cache compensate.

Thermal design power tells a different story: the i7-9750H is rated at 45W TDP, while the i3-10320 is rated at 91W TDP. This reflects the mobile versus desktop positioning, with the i7-9750H designed for laptops and the i3-10320 for desktop power delivery. Memory support is identical: both use DDR4 with dual-channel buses and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, and neither supports ECC memory. Both have integrated graphics (UHD 630 for the i7-9750H, UHD Graphics 630 for the i3-10320), neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both use PCIe Gen 3, though the i3-10320 lists 16 lanes (CPU only) while the i7-9750H does not specify lane count.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The i7-9750H has an average score of 14886, which is 0.2% higher than the i3-10320's 14852. Both sit at the 69th percentile of all CPUs, making them statistically equivalent in aggregate performance.

Q: Is the i3-10320 faster in single-core performance?

A: Yes. The i3-10320 scores 2841 in PassMark single-thread tests, which is 15.4% higher than the i7-9750H's 2404. This aligns with its higher base clock (3.80 GHz vs 2.60 GHz) and higher boost clock (4.60 GHz vs 4.50 GHz).

Q: How much of a multi-core advantage does the i7-9750H have?

A: The i7-9750H leads by 5.7% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (8973 vs 8486) and by 21.7% in PassMark integer math (37822 vs 31071). In floating-point math, it leads by 19.8% (23343 vs 19483).

Q: Do both processors support the same memory and PCIe features?

A: Both support DDR4 memory with dual-channel buses and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. Both use PCIe Gen 3, but the i3-10320 explicitly lists 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-9750H does not specify lane count. Neither supports ECC memory.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The i7-9750H has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the i3-10320 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The i7-9750H also has more L3 cache at 12 MB shared versus 8 MB shared.

Q: Which processor is better for physics simulations?

A: The i3-10320 wins the PassMark physics test with a score of 689, which is 2.8% higher than the i7-9750H's 670. This is one of the few tests where the desktop part's higher clock speeds prevail.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-9750H | Intel Core i3-10320 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 4 |

| Threads | 12 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 91 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1440 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Comet Lake |

| Codename | Coffee Lake-HR | Comet Lake |

| Generation | Core i7 (Coffee Lake-HR) | Core i3 (Comet Lake) |

| Die Size | 149 mm² | Not listed |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

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

| Integrated Graphics | UHD 630 | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

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

| Release Date | 2019-04-22 | 2020-04-29 |

| Part Number | SRF6USRFCP | SRH3G |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i7-9750H's largest victory comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 37822 versus the i3-10320's 31071, a 21.7% advantage. This is a decisive margin that reflects the extra two cores and four threads. The floating-point math test shows a similar story: 23343 vs 19483, a 19.8% lead. These are the two biggest wins for the i7-9750H and highlight its superiority in compute-heavy workloads.

In Cinebench tests, the i7-9750H wins every single one by a consistent 5.6% to 5.8% margin. For example, Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 904 vs 855 (+5.7%), and R15 single-core shows 127 vs 120 (+5.8%). The consistency across versions suggests a stable architectural advantage rather than a test-specific quirk. The i7-9750H also wins PassMark multithread (10671 vs 9982, +6.9%), data compression (150443 vs 140255, +7.3%), data encryption (3756 vs 3458, +8.6%), and random string sorting (19862 vs 17821, +11.5%).

The i3-10320's biggest win is in PassMark single-thread, where its 2841 score beats the i7-9750H's 2404 by 15.4%. This is a substantial gap, nearly triple the i7-9750H's lead in Cinebench single-core tests. The i3-10320 also edges out the i7-9750H in PassMark extended instructions (9284 vs 9187, +1%) and PassMark physics (689 vs 670, +2.8%). The find prime numbers test is a tie at 32 each, though the data assigns the win to the i7-9750H with a 0% delta. Out of 17 total head-to-head benchmarks, the i7-9750H wins 13 and the i3-10320 wins 4.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of labor. The i7-9750H is the processor to choose for multi-threaded workloads: its 6 cores and 12 threads deliver a 19.8% to 21.7% advantage in floating-point and integer math, and it leads by 5.7% in all Cinebench multi-core tests. This makes it better suited for video rendering, 3D modeling, code compilation, and any task that scales across cores. Its 12 MB of L3 cache also helps in data-heavy scenarios, as shown by its 11.5% lead in random string sorting.

The i3-10320 is the pick for single-threaded responsiveness. Its 15.4% lead in PassMark single-thread is the largest margin in the entire comparison, and its higher base clock of 3.80 GHz means it will feel snappier in everyday desktop use, legacy software, and lightly-threaded games. Its wins in extended instructions and physics also suggest it handles certain SIMD and game-physics workloads more efficiently. However, its 91W TDP makes it a desktop-only part, while the i7-9750H's 45W TDP is designed for mobile systems.

Users should also consider production status: the i7-9750H is end-of-life, while the i3-10320 is still active. Both CPUs sit at the 69th percentile of all processors and are separated by only 0.2% in average benchmark score, so neither is a bad choice. The decision hinges on whether the workload benefits more from the i7-9750H's extra cores and cache (choose it) or from the i3-10320's higher clock speeds and single-thread performance (choose it). For mixed usage, the i7-9750H's 13 wins out of 17 tests suggest it is the more versatile performer overall.