Intel Core i3-9100F vs Intel Core i3-9350K Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Core i3-9350K wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all six tests. The Intel Core i3-9100F records zero wins, while the i3-9350K secures six. This is not a subtle margin; the deltas are uniform and substantial, hovering around 12% across the board.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-9100F scores 574 against the i3-9350K’s 650, a delta of -11.7%. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 80 for the 9100F versus 91 for the 9350K, a -12.1% difference. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore results are 2392 and 2711 respectively, a -11.8% delta. The R20 single-core test repeats the pattern: 337 versus 382, again -11.8%. In Cinebench R23, the multicore scores are 5697 and 6456, a -11.8% gap, while the single-core scores are 804 and 911, a -11.7% delta.

The consistency of these numbers is striking. Whether the workload is single-threaded or fully multithreaded, the percentage difference barely moves, staying between -11.7% and -12.1%. This suggests the performance gap is not workload-dependent but rather a fundamental property of the two chips’ operating characteristics. The i3-9350K’s advantage is uniform, which simplifies analysis: there is no scenario in the data where the i3-9100F closes the gap.

Looking at broader benchmark averages, the two CPUs sit very close in the database’s overall ranking. The i3-9100F has an average benchmark score of 1903, while the i3-9350K averages 1867. That is a reversal of the head-to-head results, but the explanation lies in the different benchmark sets. The i3-9100F has Geekbench scores included in its average (3962 multicore, 1378 singlecore), while the i3-9350K’s average is based only on the Cinebench results. This methodological difference means the average scores are not directly comparable, but the head-to-head tests are, and they are unambiguous.

The percentile rankings also show a near tie: the i3-9100F sits at the 43rd percentile of all CPUs, the i3-9350K at the 42nd. In the context of the entire database, these are effectively equivalent positions, yet the direct comparison reveals a consistent 12% edge for the 9350K. This is a useful reminder that percentile ranks smooth over head-to-head differences, and that a 12% gap in synthetic render tests may not shift a CPU’s overall standing dramatically.

Where Each One Wins

The data does not offer any benchmark category where the i3-9100F comes out ahead. Every Cinebench test, regardless of version or thread count, is won by the i3-9350K. The i3-9100F’s only advantage appears in the Geekbench tests, but those were not run on the i3-9350K, so they cannot be compared directly. The database records Geekbench scores for the 9100F only, making any cross-CPU inference impossible from the available measurements.

For use-case analysis, the implication is that the i3-9350K is the stronger choice for any workload that resembles Cinebench’s rendering tasks, both single-threaded and multithreaded. The 11.7% to 12.1% advantage applies equally to bursty single-core tasks (like many older games or lightly threaded applications) and to sustained multicore loads (like video encoding or 3D rendering). The i3-9100F, while not a weak performer in absolute terms, simply does not win anywhere in the recorded head-to-head data.

The i3-9100F’s saving grace, if it can be called that, is its lower thermal design power. The database lists the 9100F at 65 watts TDP versus 91 watts for the 9350K. For a system builder prioritizing power draw and heat output, the 9100F is the more efficient part, though the data does not include any efficiency metrics to quantify the trade-off. The 9350K also includes integrated graphics (UHD 630), while the 9100F has no integrated graphics listed. This means the 9100F requires a discrete GPU, whereas the 9350K can output video without one.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded measurements, the Intel Core i3-9350K is the superior processor. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks with a consistent 12% margin, and its higher base and boost clocks (4.00 GHz and 4.60 GHz versus 3.60 GHz and 4.20 GHz) align with that result. The 9350K also has a larger L3 cache (8 MB shared versus 6 MB shared), an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and integrated graphics. The 9100F counters with a lower TDP and a lower launch MSRP, but the benchmark data shows no performance category where it prevails.

For users who prioritize raw compute performance in Cinebench-style workloads, the choice is clear: the i3-9350K is the faster chip. Its uniform 12% lead means it will handle both lightly threaded and heavily threaded tasks with proportionally higher throughput. The unlocked multiplier also suggests headroom for further gains, though the database does not include overclocked results.

For users who value the integrated GPU, the 9350K is again the pick, since the 9100F lacks any iGPU and will require a separate graphics card for display output. The 9100F’s lower TDP might appeal to compact or low-power builds, but the performance penalty is substantial and consistent. The data does not support choosing the 9100F on performance grounds; the only reasons to do so would be power efficiency or a lower upfront cost, and the latter is not a metric this analysis evaluates.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Core i3-9350K wins all six recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core i3-9100F wins none.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The i3-9100F scores 5697, while the i3-9350K scores 6456, a delta of -11.8% for the 9100F.

Q: Does the i3-9100F have any advantage in clock speed?

A: No. The i3-9100F has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The i3-9350K is higher on both: 4.00 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost.

Q: Which CPU has more L3 cache?

A: The i3-9350K has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-9100F has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the two CPUs tie?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows no tie. The i3-9350K wins every test with margins between -11.7% and -12.1%.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: The i3-9350K includes UHD 630 integrated graphics. The i3-9100F has no integrated graphics listed in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture: Coffee Lake, on Intel’s 14 nm process node, with a die size of 126 mm². They are both from the Core i3 generation labeled Coffee Lake Refresh, use Intel Socket 1151, and are manufactured by Intel. The core and thread counts are identical at 4 cores and 4 threads. Memory support is also the same: DDR4, dual-channel, with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support enabled. PCIe is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The first architectural difference is the L3 cache. The i3-9100F has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-9350K has 8 MB. L1 and L2 caches are identical: 64 KB per core and 256 KB per core respectively. The larger L3 on the 9350K likely contributes to its performance edge, though the database does not isolate cache effects from clock speed effects.

The second difference is the integrated graphics. The i3-9350K includes UHD 630 graphics, while the i3-9100F has no integrated graphics listed. This makes the 9100F a purely compute-focused part that requires a discrete GPU, whereas the 9350K can function as a complete system on its own.

The third difference is the multiplier. The i3-9350K has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the i3-9100F is locked. The 9350K’s part number is SRCZT, while the 9100F’s is SRF6NSRF7W, indicating different silicon revisions. Both CPUs are end-of-life production status and were released on the same date.

Specification Differences

The specifications where the two CPUs differ are straightforward. Clock speeds: the i3-9100F runs at 3.60 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost, while the i3-9350K runs at 4.00 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost. Thermal design power: the 9100F is rated at 65 watts, the 9350K at 91 watts. L3 cache: 6 MB shared versus 8 MB shared. Integrated graphics: none on the 9100F, UHD 630 on the 9350K. Multiplier: locked on the 9100F, unlocked on the 9350K. Launch MSRP: the 9100F launched at $122, the 9350K at $184. Part numbers also differ, as noted above.

All other recorded specifications match: 4 cores, 4 threads, 14 nm process, 126 mm² die size, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, DDR4 dual-channel memory, 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, Intel Socket 1151, Coffee Lake architecture, and the same release date. The average benchmark scores differ (1903 for the 9100F, 1867 for the 9350K), but as discussed, these are based on different test sets and should not be treated as a direct comparison.