Intel Core i3-12100F vs Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL Comparison

The Intel Core i3-12100F is the decisive performance winner in this comparison, taking 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL’s sole victory is a narrow 0.5% margin in integer math. Despite the Ultra 3 having more cores and threads, the i3-12100F’s much higher clock speeds and older but higher-performance architecture deliver consistently superior results across every major workload category, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark compression and encryption tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-12100F wins in nearly every measurable performance category, making it the clear choice for users prioritizing raw compute speed. Its largest advantages appear in multi-threaded and specialized workloads: the i3-12100F leads by 35.6% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 35.7% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 35.7% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. It also dominates in data compression with a 70.8% advantage, extended instructions with a 92.4% lead, and random string sorting at 41.4% ahead. These results indicate the i3-12100F is better suited for content creation, software compilation, and any task that leverages SIMD or heavy data manipulation.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL wins exactly one benchmark: PassMark integer math, scoring 41171 against the i3-12100F’s 40978, a 0.5% edge. This is a marginal victory that does not suggest any meaningful real-world advantage. The Ultra 3’s other close result is in floating-point math, where it trails by only 4% (30750 vs 31977), but it loses every other test by double-digit margins. The Ultra 3’s wins are effectively negligible; its architecture and 15W TDP target efficiency rather than peak performance, and the data shows it cannot match the i3-12100F in any significant benchmark category.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and use fundamentally different designs. The i3-12100F is built on Alder Lake architecture (codename Alder Lake-S) using a 10 nm process node, while the Ultra 3 105UL uses Meteor Lake architecture (codename Meteor Lake-PS) on a 7 nm node. The i3-12100F has 4 cores and 8 threads, whereas the Ultra 3 has 8 cores and 10 threads, which suggests the Ultra 3 uses a hybrid core arrangement with some efficiency cores that do not add full thread count.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The i3-12100F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 3 has larger per-core caches — 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 — but less shared L3 at 10 MB. This means the Ultra 3 has better per-core cache locality but less total last-level cache, which may explain its weaker multi-threaded performance despite more cores.

Memory and I/O support also diverge. The i3-12100F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the Ultra 3 supports only DDR5 with a rated memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The i3-12100F uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 3 uses PCIe Gen 4 with only 8 lanes. The Ultra 3 includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG 48EU graphics, whereas the i3-12100F has no integrated graphics. The i3-12100F uses Socket 1700, while the Ultra 3 uses the newer Socket 1851.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results illustrate the i3-12100F’s overwhelming multi-threaded advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i3-12100F scores 11860 against the Ultra 3’s 8742, a 35.7% lead. Single-core results tell the same story: the i3-12100F scores 1674 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1234 for the Ultra 3, also a 35.7% margin. This pattern holds across R15 and R20, with the i3-12100F leading by 35.5-35.7% in every single-core and multi-core variant.

PassMark tests reveal the i3-12100F’s strengths in data-heavy workloads. The i3-12100F scores 160452 in data compression versus 93961 for the Ultra 3, a massive 70.8% difference. Extended instructions show an even larger gap: 10842 versus 5634, a 92.4% advantage. Random string sorting sees the i3-12100F ahead by 41.4% (15809 vs 11179). Data encryption favors the i3-12100F by 27% (8071 vs 6354), and find prime numbers shows a 36.4% lead (60 vs 44).

The i3-12100F also wins the overall multi-threaded PassMark score by 36.3% (14015 vs 10285) and the physics test by 37.2% (985 vs 718). The single-thread PassMark scores are closer: the i3-12100F leads by only 1.8% (3444 vs 3382), indicating that in lightly threaded integer workloads, the two are nearly equivalent. The Ultra 3’s only win in integer math (41171 vs 40978) reinforces this — the two are essentially tied in pure integer throughput, but the i3-12100F is substantially better at everything else.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-12100F | Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL |

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

| Series | Core 12th Gen | Core Ultra Series 1 |

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 10 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| TDP | 58 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Alder Lake | Meteor Lake |

| Codename | Alder Lake-S | Meteor Lake-PS |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 7 nm |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 10 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 (depends on motherboard) |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 89.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 4, 8 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Arc Xe-LPG 48EU |

| Launch MSRP | $97 | $295 |

The i3-12100F has a much higher base clock (3.30 GHz vs 1.50 GHz) and a slightly higher boost clock (4.30 GHz vs 4.20 GHz), which explains its single-threaded superiority despite the Ultra 3’s more modern process node. The Ultra 3 has more cores and threads but consumes only 15W versus the i3-12100F’s 58W, making it far more power-efficient at the cost of performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-12100F wins all multi-core benchmarks. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 11860 versus the Ultra 3’s 8742, a 35.7% advantage. PassMark multi-thread shows a 36.3% lead (14015 vs 10285).

Q: Does the Ultra 3 105UL beat the i3-12100F in any test?

A: Yes, in exactly one test: PassMark integer math, where the Ultra 3 scores 41171 versus the i3-12100F’s 40978, a 0.5% margin. It also comes close in floating-point math, trailing by only 4% (30750 vs 31977).

Q: How do clock speeds compare?

A: The i3-12100F has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Ultra 3 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The i3-12100F’s higher clocks contribute to its single-thread performance lead of 35.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: Which processor has a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Ultra 3 105UL uses a 7 nm process node, while the i3-12100F uses 10 nm. However, the newer process does not translate into better benchmark performance, as the i3-12100F wins 16 of 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: What are the memory and PCIe differences?

A: The i3-12100F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel memory and PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The Ultra 3 supports only DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: Only the Ultra 3 includes integrated graphics (Arc Xe-LPG 48EU). The i3-12100F has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

The Verdict

For anyone building a desktop system where performance is the priority, the Intel Core i3-12100F is the clear choice. It wins 16 of 17 benchmarks, with margins ranging from 1.8% in single-thread PassMark to 92.4% in extended instructions. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11860 is 35.7% higher than the Ultra 3’s 8742, making it substantially better for rendering, encoding, and other multi-threaded workloads. The i3-12100F also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 5, providing greater platform flexibility.

The Ultra 3 105UL makes sense only for specific use cases where its 15W TDP and integrated graphics are essential. It consumes dramatically less power than the i3-12100F’s 58W, and its Arc Xe-LPG 48EU graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU. However, its performance is significantly lower across the board, and its launch MSRP of $295 is much higher than the i3-12100F’s $97. The data does not support choosing the Ultra 3 for any performance-driven application; it is only viable for ultra-low-power or space-constrained builds where the i3-12100F’s socket and power requirements are prohibitive. The i3-12100F’s percentile rank of 68 and average benchmark score of 13494 versus the Ultra 3’s 13061 confirm that the older, cheaper processor is the better overall performer.