OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

Intel Core i3-10105F review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark multi-core score:8858N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.4 GHzCPU socket:LGA1200TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

Intel Core i3-10105F Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

Intel Core i3-10105F
6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
Score components

40%

5.4

Technical score

25%

5.4

Reviews score

15%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

5.4

Sentiment score

10%

9.1

User score

â–¼Worse than 74% of processors
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 61%
5.4

Technical score

Technical score
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
Score components

60%

5.5

Performance

18%

3.6

Architecture

10%

5.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 55%
5.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models

5.4

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
â–¼Worse than 72%
9.1

User score

User score
9.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 66% of models

80%

9.0

Rating

20%

9.4

Popularity

â–²Better than 66%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • intel-core-i3-10105f
intel-core-i3-10105f
Best prices
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Processors model ranking

Ranked #232 of 558 models in Processors (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i3-10105F

Technical score
Technical score
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
Score components:

60%

5.5

Performance

18%

3.6

Architecture

10%

5.7

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

7.7

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

5.4
Reviews score
5.4
User score
9.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

7.2
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
LGA1200
This processor uses the LGA1200 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 5.2% of processors.
Chipset
?
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2
This processor supports SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 instruction sets, which is narrower support than 88.2% of processors and equal to that of 9.7% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.4 GHz which is higher than that of 48.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.7 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.7 GHz which is higher than that of 51.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
8,858
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 8,858 in PassMark, which is lower than 56.4% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.9% of processors and equal to that of 29% of processors.
L3 cache
6 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 6 MB which is smaller than that of 62.3% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,666 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to 7.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2666 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2666 MHz, which is lower than that of 59.8% of processors and equal to 7.8% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
?
Configurable TDP
?
Show more

Intel Core i3-10105F vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 24.7% higher user score
    User score
    9.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
    How we count it
    Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
    Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 66% of models

    80%

    9.0

    Rating

    20%

    9.4

    Popularity

    9.1 vs 7.3
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
    LGA1200 vs FP5
  • 24.7% higher user score
    User score
    9.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
    How we count it
    Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
    Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 66% of models

    80%

    9.0

    Rating

    20%

    9.4

    Popularity

    9.1 vs 7.3
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (LGA1200 vs FP5).
    LGA1200 vs FP5
  • 28.8% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (126 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    126 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 19.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models

    5.4

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    5.4 vs 6.7
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 19.4% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models

    5.4

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    5.4 vs 6.7
  • 25.0% lower sentiment score
    5.4 vs 7.2
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, OS Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 22.8% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,858 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,858 vs 11,469
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake).
    Comet Lake vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 18.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1.5 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 33.3% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (6 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    6 MB vs 9 MB
  • 57.6% fewer transistors
    This processor has fewer transistors than the average processor (2.1 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    2.1 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2666 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 11.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    41.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2666 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,666 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
Tech Mechanic
≈ estimated
20/07/2021
Hands-on review · 15 days of use, gaming and editing
Verdict
Intel Core i3-10105F is a good processor for gaming and editing, with minor heat issues under full load.
Brand video
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
bestguides.in
≈ estimated
06/04/2022
Personal review · Gaming and editing
Verdict
The Intel Core i3-10105F is a capable 1080p gaming and light video editing chip, but its 2666 MHz memory limit and older platform leave it slower than the Core i3-12100F.

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i3-10105F

  • Four cores and eight threads keep several everyday programs running at once.
  • A boost up to 4.4 GHz gives quick responses for short tasks.
  • The box includes a cooler, so you can build without buying one.
  • It supports up to 128 GB of DDR4 memory, enough for most home PCs.
  • A 65 W base power rating keeps heat and power use modest.
  • Two memory channels keep data moving between the chip and the RAM.

What we don't like about Intel Core i3-10105F

  • There is no integrated graphics, so a graphics card is required.
  • It takes only DDR4 memory, capped at 2666 MHz.
  • The 14 nm Comet Lake design is older, so one heavy task runs slower than on newer chips.
  • It has only PCIe 3.0, so the newest fast drives will not run at full speed.
  • The multiplier is locked, so the chip cannot be overclocked.

Verdict

Four cores running at up to 4.4 GHz make the Intel Core i3-10105F a practical pick for a basic home PC. It is a Comet Lake chip built on 14 nm, so newer designs pull ahead when one heavy task needs all the power. Web browsing, office work and video calls run without fuss, though, and the box includes a cooler, so you can start building without buying one. It takes only DDR4 memory, up to 2666 MHz, and it has no integrated graphics. That last point is the main drawback, because a separate graphics card is needed before the screen shows anything. It suits someone building a cheap PC for everyday work who already has a graphics card or plans to buy one, and who does not need fast memory.

Compare Intel Core i3-10105F with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i3-10105F and other processors

No results found