Intel Core i3-10105F is a rarity: Cheap processor for cheap mobos

Conclusion

The choice of CPUs for low budget builds is getting weaker and less economical – the current prices of Pentiums are reminiscent of a bad joke. Core i3-1010x(F) are the only ones in sufficient numbers at the moment, and still for reasonable money. It’s just a shame that AMD has no competition here. But the comparison of Core i3 Comet Lake with Core i5-10400(F) is also attractive. You might find that it’s worth the savings.

Conclusion

The Core i3-10105F is the cheapest processor we’ve tested so far. It’s also more than 40% cheaper compared to the Core i5-10400F (which is the second cheapest processor in our tests). Therefore, the last places are also successful for the Core i3-10105F, where it doesn’t fall dramatically behind the second-to-last processor. This doesn’t happen in PCMark, for example, which tests performance for real-world word processing, spreadsheet editing or video calling, light photo editing, or launching applications, including web browsers. These are all tasks that a computer to which the Core i3 aspires will encounter. The Core i3-10105F is usually only marginally behind the Core i5-10400F here, and even has a bit of an edge thanks to the higher frequencies, for example when working with Libre Office spreadsheets, or the Core i3 is a hair more nimble at loading and saving documents as well.

The Ci3-10105F is faster in some situations in a web environment as well. For hard multi-threaded workloads such as 3D rendering or video encoding, this processor is no longer suitable – it’s slow. Four cores are simply not enough. However, if the application only utilizes one, the Ci3-10105F beats not only the Ci5-10400F, but when encoding audio with the Qpus encoder, the tested Core i3 Comet Lake outperforms even the Ryzen 5 5600X.

The Ci3-10105F also has excellent performance per euro for games. The monitor in the Core i3 class of PCs is typically Full HD and 60Hz resolution, and we’ll be looking at this processor accordingly. The most common scenario is that the Ci3-10105F is completely at the bottom. In CS:GO, it loses to the Core i5-10400F by 16%, in Total War Saga: Troy it’s minus 13% to the Ryzen 5 3600, in Cyberpunk 2077 the loss to the same AMD processor is 12%, in DOOM Eternal it’s 4%, in Metro Exodus it’s only 1%, and gradually, the situation is turning in favor of the Core i3.

In Borderlands 3, the Ci3-10105F results are already even, also in F1 2020, where the Core i3 is already starting to go into the lead though. For example, in Shadow of the Tomb Raider the Ryzen 5 3600 processor is already 4% behind, in Microsoft Flight Simulator the lead is even more visible – 6%. In this game, thanks to achieving higher frequencies, the Ci3-10105F also outperforms the Ci5-10400F. But the Core i3 performs best in Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla, which suits Intel’s processors and the Comet Lake generation specifically due to low L3 cache latencies.
In summary, taking all games into account, the Core i3-10105F falls behind Ryzen 5 3600 in Full HD by 5% , and behind the Core i5-10400F by 6%. At 4K resolution, the difference is only 1-3% to the disfavour of the Core i3. This comparison is admittedly purely theoretical, as few people are likely to use a cheap processor with an expensive monitor. But it turns out that we’re still in a class where CPU performance is practically irrelevant at high resolutions (and we’re using a powerful GeForce RTX 3080 graphics card in our test setup…).

It is also important to note that the power draw of this processor does not exceed 55 W. The performance per watt is always a hair better with the Core i5-10400F processor. However, the Core i3 is close behind, especially in gaming, and it also leaves the Ryzen 5 5600X and 3600 behind.

Thanks to its low power draw, the Core i3-10105F is undemanding on cooling, and in relative silence, this processor can handle even the box cooler. However, the TIM quality of the Core i3 will probably be weaker than that of the Core i5 (and we’re talking about models with paste under the IHS now). Despite the fact that the 10105F processor is 15W more power-efficient than the 10400F, the Core i3 heats up more. It’s only tenths of a degree higher, but considering the Core i5 has more than 20% higher power draw, it’s clear this processor should also reach higher temperatures. So it’s a similar situation (albeit with minor differences) as between the Ryzen 7 3700X and the Ryzen 5 3600, where the weaker model got hotter at lower power draw. This may also be due to the inaccuracy of the internal sensor. But they were definitely skimping on something. Either way, we’re rooting for Core i3 Comet Lake. It cannot be ruled out that these are the last processors that will have a really good price-performance ratio even after taking motherboard prices into account. So don’t miss out while they’re here. There’s no waiting around with upgrading the machinery of larger workplaces.

TL;DR: Core i3-10105F is a cheap processor with performance suitable for typical office work and you won’t make a mistake even if you build a gaming computer for your daughter or son with it – it won’t bottleneck graphics cards too much, from the lower classes (GeForce GTX 16×0 or Radeon RX 500) at all.

Games for testing are from Jama levova

Special thanks to Blackmagic Design (for a DaVinci Resolve Studio license), Topaz Labs (for licenses for DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI) and Zoner (for Photo Studio X license)

English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš


  •  
  •  
  •  
Flattr this!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *