Intel Core i3-1315U vs Intel Core i5-10400F Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-1315U has an average benchmark score of 15022, while the Intel Core i5-10400F scores 14185. The i3-1315U sits at the 69th percentile of all CPUs, slightly ahead of the i5-10400F's 68th percentile.

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-1315U wins in PassMark single-thread tests with a score of 3380 compared to 2541 for the i5-10400F, a 33% advantage. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the i5-10400F leads with 1451 versus 1323.

Q: What are the biggest performance gaps between these two chips?

A: The i5-10400F dominates in PassMark data compression, scoring 185944 versus 126436, a 32% lead. It also leads in extended instructions by 40.7% and random string sorting by 39.5%. Conversely, the i3-1315U wins data encryption by 85% and single-thread PassMark by 33%.

Q: Which processor has more threads, and does it matter in benchmarks?

A: The i5-10400F has 12 threads versus 8 threads on the i3-1315U. This shows in multi-threaded workloads, where the i5-10400F leads in Cinebench R23 multicore with 10283 versus 9374, and in PassMark multithread with 12115 versus 11482.

Q: Are these processors from the same generation?

A: No. The i3-1315U is a Raptor Lake-U mobile chip released in January 2023, while the i5-10400F is a Comet Lake desktop chip released in April 2020. The i3-1315U uses a 10 nm process, while the i5-10400F uses 14 nm.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i3-1315U includes integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics 64EU. The Intel Core i5-10400F has no integrated graphics, which is indicated by the "F" suffix in its name.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i3-1315U and Intel Core i5-10400F represent different design philosophies from different eras of Intel's product lineup. The i3-1315U is built on the Raptor Lake architecture with a 10 nm process node, while the i5-10400F uses the older Comet Lake architecture on a 14 nm process. This process advantage gives the i3-1315U a significant efficiency lead, reflected in its 15 W TDP versus the i5-10400F's 65 W TDP.

The core configurations differ notably. Both processors have 6 physical cores, but the i5-10400F supports 12 threads through Hyper-Threading, while the i3-1315U supports only 8 threads. This means the i5-10400F can handle more concurrent threads, which typically benefits heavily parallel workloads.

Cache layouts also differentiate the two. The i3-1315U has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, while the i5-10400F has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core. However, the i5-10400F has a larger shared L3 cache at 12 MB compared to 10 MB on the i3-1315U.

Memory support differs significantly. The i3-1315U supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the i5-10400F is limited to DDR4. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the i5-10400F has a listed memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the i3-1315U does not have a bandwidth figure recorded.

Platform connectivity shows another generational gap. The i3-1315U uses Intel BGA 1744 socket with PCIe Gen 4 (8 lanes), while the i5-10400F uses Intel Socket 1200 with PCIe Gen 3 (16 lanes). The i3-1315U is designed for mobile devices, while the i5-10400F targets desktop systems.

Clock speeds reveal the trade-off between efficiency and raw throughput. The i3-1315U has a base clock of 1200 MHz and boost clock of 4.50 GHz, while the i5-10400F has a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz but a slightly lower boost of 4.30 GHz. The i5-10400F's higher base clock helps in sustained workloads, while the i3-1315U's boost capability is impressive for a 15 W part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a clear division of strengths. The i5-10400F wins 11 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the i3-1315U takes 6 victories.

In Cinebench tests, the i5-10400F consistently leads across all versions and workload types. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 1036 versus 944, an 8.9% advantage. Single-core R15 shows the same 8.9% gap with 146 versus 133. The pattern continues in R20 multicore (4318 versus 3937, 8.8% lead) and R20 single-core (609 versus 555, 8.9% lead). Cinebench R23 multicore shows 10283 versus 9374, another 8.8% gap, and R23 single-core shows 1451 versus 1323, 8.8% ahead.

PassMark tests reveal more dramatic swings. The i5-10400F dominates data compression with 185944 versus 126436, a massive 32% lead. Extended instructions favor the i5-10400F by 40.7% (12500 versus 7413). Random string sorting shows a 39.5% advantage for the i5-10400F (23185 versus 14028). Integer math goes to the i5-10400F by 9.2% (41471 versus 37644), and multithread performance favors it by 5.2% (12115 versus 11482).

The i3-1315U fights back in specific workloads. Data encryption shows its biggest win: 7583 versus 4100, a striking 85% advantage. Find prime numbers goes to the i3-1315U by 17.1% (41 versus 35). Floating point math shows a modest 4.1% lead (27012 versus 25956), and physics tests show a narrow 1.4% edge (706 versus 696). The PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests both record 3380 versus 2541, a 33% win for the i3-1315U.

These results paint a picture of two chips optimized for different scenarios. The i5-10400F excels in traditional desktop workloads, particularly those using many threads and integer operations. The i3-1315U shows surprising strength in encryption and single-threaded tasks, likely benefiting from its newer architecture and higher boost clock.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category:

• Process node: 10 nm (i3-1315U) versus 14 nm (i5-10400F)
• Threads: 8 (i3-1315U) versus 12 (i5-10400F)
• Base clock: 1200 MHz (i3-1315U) versus 2.90 GHz (i5-10400F)
• Boost clock: 4.50 GHz (i3-1315U) versus 4.30 GHz (i5-10400F)
• TDP: 15 W (i3-1315U) versus 65 W (i5-10400F)
• Socket: Intel BGA 1744 (i3-1315U) versus Intel Socket 1200 (i5-10400F)
• Architecture: Raptor Lake (i3-1315U) versus Comet Lake (i5-10400F)
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core (i3-1315U) versus 64 KB per core (i5-10400F)
• L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core (i3-1315U) versus 256 KB per core (i5-10400F)
• L3 cache: 10 MB shared (i3-1315U) versus 12 MB shared (i5-10400F)
• Memory support: DDR4 and DDR5 (i3-1315U) versus DDR4 only (i5-10400F)
• Memory bandwidth: not recorded (i3-1315U) versus 42.7 GB/s (i5-10400F)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 8 lanes (i3-1315U) versus Gen 3, 16 lanes (i5-10400F)
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 64EU (i3-1315U) versus none (i5-10400F)
• Market segment: Mobile (i3-1315U) versus Desktop (i5-10400F)
• Release date: January 2023 (i3-1315U) versus April 2020 (i5-10400F)
• Launch MSRP: $309 (i3-1315U) versus not recorded (i5-10400F)
• Part number: SRMLV (i3-1315U) versus SRH3DSRH79 (i5-10400F)

Both processors have 6 cores, dual-channel memory buses, no ECC memory support, and locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-10400F is the clear choice for multi-threaded productivity workloads. Its 12 threads give it a structural advantage in Cinebench multicore tests, where it leads by roughly 9% across R15, R20, and R23 versions. The PassMark multithread test confirms this with a 5.2% lead. Data compression, extended instructions, and random string sorting are areas where the i5-10400F excels dramatically, with leads between 32% and 40.7%. Users who regularly compress files, run complex calculations, or work with large datasets will find the i5-10400F substantially faster.

The i3-1315U wins in single-threaded responsiveness and specific specialized workloads. Its 33% lead in PassMark single-thread tests suggests snappier everyday interactions in lightly threaded applications. The 85% advantage in data encryption is remarkable and could matter for security-focused tasks or encrypted storage workloads. Floating point math and prime number finding also favor the i3-1315U, indicating strength in scientific or mathematical applications that rely on floating point precision.

The i3-1315U also wins on platform flexibility. It includes integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a separate GPU in basic systems. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, offering upgrade path flexibility. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for compact, low-power devices, while the i5-10400F's 65 W TDP requires more robust cooling and power delivery.

The Verdict

The data clearly shows that these processors serve different purposes despite having the same core count. The Intel Core i5-10400F is the stronger overall performer, winning 11 of 17 benchmark comparisons and leading in all Cinebench tests. Its 12-thread configuration and higher base clock make it the better choice for sustained multi-threaded workloads, content creation, and tasks that benefit from higher thread counts. The 32% to 40.7% leads in data compression and extended instructions make it particularly well-suited for productivity and development environments.

The Intel Core i3-1315U, despite being a mobile processor, demonstrates impressive capabilities in specific areas. Its 85% lead in data encryption and 33% lead in PassMark single-thread performance show that newer architecture and higher boost clocks can overcome some disadvantages. Its integrated graphics and support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory make it a more versatile platform option, particularly for compact or power-efficient systems.

For desktop users building a system for general productivity, multi-tasking, or content work, the i5-10400F is the data-backed choice. For mobile users or those building compact systems where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter, the i3-1315U offers competitive performance with significantly lower power requirements. The choice between these two ultimately depends on whether the workload favors thread count and sustained throughput or single-thread responsiveness and specialized instruction efficiency.