Intel Core i3-10105F vs Intel Core i7-6700HQ

Processor comparisons   19-03-2021
   Let's say there are difficulties with the choice of a CPU, you will solve them by reading the detailed tests Intel Core i3-10105F vs Intel Core i7-6700HQ and understand which is better for games or simple use for machine learning, programming, rendering, video editing, streaming. Here is all information from several benchmarks or real video editing and streaming tests. A careful analysis of all the specifications, to make it easier to read, is summarized in the table.
   From the comparison video, you can get the results of parallel examination in special testing software such as GeekBench 6, 5.2, Prime95, Dolphin Emulator, VeraCrypt, World of Tanks enCore Benchmark, RealBench, WPrime, 7zip, Furmark, Blender, SuperPi, PassMark, Blender, Gears 5, 3DMark, PCMark 10, Handbrake, MATLAB, DaVinci Resolve Studio, AIDA64, UserBenchmark, Cinebench 23 (20, 15).
   Gaming performance of processors in:

Rainbow Six Siege
Apex Legends
Cyberpunk 2077
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Warzone
Assassin's Creed Valhalla
Fallout 76
DOOM: Eternal
Halo Infinite
Grand Theft Auto V
Valorant
Watch Dogs Legion
Fortnite
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands
Last Man Standing
Valheim
Red Dead Redemption 2
Borderlands 3
Death Stranding
Overwatch

After reading the results of parallel benchmarks and videos, you can already make an briefed decision about which CPU is better to buy for gaming Intel Core i7-6700HQ or Intel Core i3-10105F.

Summary benchmark results

As a percentage of the maximum value based on a sample from the entire base of all processors
Processor Benchmark

Core i3-10105F

52%

Core i7-6700HQ

51%

This parameter shows the performance of the processors in single-threaded and multi-threaded mode. In this comparison, Core i3-10105F is 1% better than Core i7-6700HQ. The data source is several popular tests. More detailed information of the benchmarks is below.

Gaming performance
Summary result of all game benchmarks.

Core i3-10105F

52%

Core i7-6700HQ

52%

The maximum result in this parameter is 100 percent, which is the performance of the most powerful processor currently available. And it is clear that this is a server processor, on which no one will play games. Because this processor costs several tens of thousands of dollars. Therefore, if you think that the selected CPU has a low game result, look at the FPS that it produces in real games in the summary table below.
List of less popular games in which CPU comparisons were performed: NBA 2K20, Control, Forza Horizon 4, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG), Microsoft Flight Simulator, DOTA 2A, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Ghostrunner, Hitman 3, Monster Hunter World, Horizon Zero Dawn, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS GO), Battlefield V, Metro Exodus, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Half-Life: Alyx, League of Legends (LOL), Resident Evil 7 Biohazard.

Gaming benchmark

Fortnite	92.8	91.7
Valorant	105.5	104.2
Cyberpunk 2077	59.1	58.4
Apex Legends	99.2	98.0
Call of Duty Warzone	79.1	78.2
Overwatch	85.4	84.4
Red Dead Redemption 2	72.8	71.9
DOOM Eternal	52.7	52.1
Warzone	82.3	81.3
Assassin's Creed	88.6	87.5
Valheim	87.6	86.5

The numbers in this table indicate the maximum FPS that was received on the device with the corresponding processor. Depending on the configuration of the computer (RAM size and Video Card) and graphics quality settings (Ultra, Medium, Normal), the results may differ quite significantly. We recommend that you better study the results of the Cinebench, GeekBench and Passmark becnmarks.
The tested computers not only did they have different amounts of RAM and different video cards. But users also tested them at different screen resolutions: FullHD, 2K or 4K. So the game benchmark data is approximate. But all video cards met the average system requirements of games. You will get more accurate information about how powerful the processor will be in games, if you compare it in one assembly with the video card that is installed in your computer.

Power consumption

Core i3-10105F

60%

Core i7-6700HQ

71%

To make a finishing resolution on which processor is better, you should also consider the generation of its core. The newer the processor generation, the better its performance in games and benchmarks, as well as its energy efficiency. In this case the Core i7-6700HQ is more energy efficient than the Core i3-10105F as it consumes less power: 65W vs. 45W. Power consumption is particularly important for laptops. And TDP should be taken into account when choosing a processor cooling system. It is necessary to count so that the TDP data specified in the cooler specification is greater than the TDP of the compared processor.

Software benchmarks

If you want to use the processor not only for gaming, but also for machine learning, streaming, video editing or video rendering, programming, then the main parameter for you is its performance in multi-threaded mode. In this mode, to achieve maximum performance, the processor uses all threads and cores that it has. You will learn this data from the benchmark tables below. Before you take into account the data from these tests, be sure to check whether the software you are going to use on your computer supports multi-threaded mode. Because there are still many programs that use only one core to work, and all the benefit of multi-core mode are unused.
Cinebench 23, 20 an 15
The results of this benchmark show Single-threaded and Multi-threaded CPU performance

	Intel Core i3-10105F	Intel Core i7-6700HQ
Cinbench 15 Single-core	191	148
Cinbench 15 Multi-core	1001	692
Cinbench 20 Single-core	447	361
Cinbench 20 Multi-core	2284	1651
Cinbench 23 Single-core	1143	891
Cinbench 23 Multi-core	4441	3958

Passmark
This popular benchmark displays Multi-threaded and Single-threaded processor performance

	Intel Core i3-10105F	Intel Core i7-6700HQ
Single-Core	2617	1937
Multi-Core	8868	6493

GeekBench 6, 5.2
This benchmark shows Multi-threaded and Single-threaded processor performance

	Intel Core i3-10105F	Intel Core i7-6700HQ
Single-Core	1172	971
Multi-Core	4732	3643

Comparison of specifications

In the specification comparison table, the most useful will be the release date of the processor and the possibility of overclocking it. The newer the processor, the longer it will last you. And the easier it will be to upgrade the system later. The same benefits from the presence of overclocking. If the processor can be overclocked, increasing its performance, then it will still be able to produce maximum FPS in new games. Accordingly, you do not need to buy a new CPU to enjoy the games any longer. The savings are obvious!

	Intel Core i3-10105F	Intel Core i7-6700HQ
Announcement date	April 01, 2020	April 01, 2015
Type	Desktop	Laptop
Socket	FCLGA1200	FCBGA1440
Core name	Comet Lake	Skylake
Architecture	x86	x86
Generation	10	6
Turbo Frequency	4.4 MHz	3.5 MHz
Frequency	3.7 MHz	2.6 MHz
Cores	4	4
Threads	8	8
Bus rate	8 GT/s	8 GT/s
Bit	64	64
Lithography	14 nm	14 nm
Transistors count	2600 millions	1880 millions
Power consumption (TDP)	65 W	45 W
Memory type	DDR4-2666	DDR4-2133, LPDDR3-1866, DDR3L-1600
Max. Memory	128 Gb	64 Gb
Memory Frequency
Memory bandwidth	41.6 GB/s	34.1 GB/s
L1 cache
L2 cache
L3 cache	6 MB	6 MB
Overclocking	No	Yes
Supports ECC	No	No
Part number

In this comparison block, you should pay attention to the differences in clock speed and the number of cores. Here Core i3-10105F is 29% better than Core i7-6700HQ in terms of CPU frequency. Also keep in mind that high CPU frequency affects battery life through power consumption (relevant for laptops).

Result:
The number of parameters for which Intel Core i3-10105F is better: 28
The number of parameters for which Intel Core i7-6700HQ is better: 2
However, it should be realized that all the figures that you have looked at here do not mean that you should be guided entirely by them and trust a simple quantitative comparison. Better to watch the testing video and read the opinion of of people who bought Intel Core i3-10105F and Intel Core i7-6700HQ before making a selection which processor to buy for gaming and which not.

Intel Core i3-10105F - all data

• Cinebench r15 score
• Cinebench r20 score
• Cinebench r23 score
• GeekBench 6, 5.2 score

• Intel Core i3-10105F specs and review.

• Intel Core i7-6700HQ specs and review.

Intel Core i3-10105F Processor Comparisons
• Vs Core i3-10325
• Vs Core i3-10305
• Vs Core i3-10305T
• Vs Core i3-10105T
• Vs Core i3-10105
• Vs Core i3-10100F
• Vs Core i3-10100
• Vs Core i7-1065G7
• Vs Core i7-6700K
• Vs Core i5-10200H
• Vs Core i5-8400
• Vs Ryzen 5 3350G
• Vs Ryzen 5 3400G
• Vs Core i5-9400
• Vs Core i5-9400F
• Vs Core i7-7700K
• Vs Core i5-1135G7
• Vs Core i3-10320
• Vs Core i7-8750H
• Vs Core i7-1165G7
• Vs Core i5-9600K
• Vs Ryzen 3 PRO 4200GE
• Vs Core i7-9750H
• Vs Ryzen 5 4500U
• Vs Core i7-1160G7
• Vs Core i5-1145G7
• Vs Core i5-1145GRE
• Vs Ryzen 3 3100
• Vs Ryzen 3 4300GE
• Vs Core i5-10600T
• Vs Ryzen 5 1600
• Vs Core i5-10400
• Vs Core i5-10300H
• Vs Ryzen 5 2400G
• Vs Core i7-7700
• Vs Core i3-10300T
• Vs Ryzen 5 3550H
• Vs Core i7-4790K
• Vs Core i7-6700
• Vs Core i5-1035G1
• Vs Core i5-9300H
• Vs Core i3-9350K
• Vs Ryzen 5 3550U
• Vs Athlon Gold PRO 3150G
• Vs Core i5-9300HF
• Vs Core i5-8300H
• Vs Athlon Gold PRO 3150GE
• Vs Ryzen 3 3200GE
• Vs Ryzen 5 3450U
• Vs Ryzen 3 3200G
• Vs Ryzen 5 3500U
• Vs Core i7-4790
• Vs Core i7-4770K
• Vs Core i7-10510U
• Vs Core i7-4770
• Vs Core i7-7700HQ
• Vs Core i3-9100F
• Vs Core i5-10210U
• Vs Core i7-3770K
• Vs Core i5-1145G7E
• Vs Core i5-1140G7
• Vs Core i5-1130G7
• Vs Core i7-1185GRE
• Vs Core i7-1185G7E
• Vs Core i7-1185G7
• Vs Core i7-1180G7
• Vs Core i3-1120G4
• Vs Core i3-1125G4
• Vs Ryzen 5 3500C
• Vs Ryzen 7 3700C
• Vs Ryzen 3 5400U
• Vs Ryzen 3 5300U
• Vs Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G
• Vs Core i3-10100T
• Vs Core i5-8260U
• Vs Core i5-10500T
• Vs Ryzen 3 PRO 4450U
• Vs Core i5-10400T
• Vs Ryzen 5 3350GE
• Vs Core i3-11100B
• Vs Core i7-1068NG7
• Vs Ryzen 5 PRO 3350GE
• Vs Ryzen 5 PRO 3350G
• Vs Xeon E-2234
• Vs Ryzen 5 3400GE
• Vs Core i7-10810U
• Vs Ryzen 5 3580U
• Vs Core i3-10300
• Vs Core i7-10610U
• Vs Core i5-1038NG7
• Vs Core i5-9500TE
• Vs Core i5-10400H
• Vs Core i5-9600T
• Vs Core i5-9400T
• Vs Core i7-8569U
• Vs Core i7-8557U
• Vs Core i7-9850HL
• Vs Core i5-1035G7
• Vs Core i5-1035G4
• Vs Core i5-9500T
• Vs Core i5-8257U
• Vs Core i5-8279U
• Vs Core i7-8809G
• Vs Core i5-8500
• Vs Core i7-8705G
• Vs Core i5-9500
• Vs Core i5-8600T
• Vs Core i5-9400H
• Vs Core i7-8559U
• Vs Core i5-8500B
• Vs Core i7-8709G
• Vs Core i5-8500T
• Vs Core i7-8706G
• Vs Core i5-8400H
• Vs Core i5-8259U
• Vs Ryzen 5 2500X
• Vs Ryzen 3 2200G
• Vs Core i3-13100F
• Vs Ryzen 3 1200
• Vs Core i3-13300F
• Vs Core i5-4690K
• Vs Ryzen 3 PRO 5350GE
• Vs Core i5-7500
• Vs Core i3-7100
• Vs Ryzen 5 5600GE
• Vs Ryzen 3 5300GE

Intel Core i7-6700HQ Processor Comparisons
• Vs Core i7-7700HQ
• Vs Core i7-4790
• Vs Ryzen 5 3500U
• Vs Core i7-4790K
• Vs Ryzen 5 2400G
• Vs Core i7-6700K
• Vs Ryzen 5 3400G
• Vs Core i5-9400F
• Vs Core i7-7700K
• Vs Core i7-8750H
• Vs Core i7-9750H
• Vs Ryzen 5 1600
• Vs Core i5-10400F
• Vs Core i7-10750H
• Vs Core i7-3770
• Vs Core i5-3470
• Vs Core i7-1065G7
• Vs FX-8350 Eight-Core
• Vs Core i7-6700
• Vs Core i5-10400
• Vs Core i5-6500
• Vs Core i5-8250U
• Vs Core i5-10210U
• Vs Core i5-9600K
• Vs Core i7-4770
• Vs Core i5-8400
• Vs Core i5-9300H
• Vs Core i7-1165G7
• Vs Core i7-10510U
• Vs Core i7-2600
• Vs Core i5-4590
• Vs Core i7-8550U
• Vs Ryzen 5 4500U
• Vs Ryzen 3 3100
• Vs Core i5-1035G1
• Vs Core i5-4570
• Vs Core i5-2400
• Vs Core i5-4460
• Vs Core i5-7200U
• Vs Core i5-10300H
• Vs Core i7-7700
• Vs Core i5-1135G7
• Vs Core i5-8265U
• Vs Core i3-10100
• Vs Ryzen 3 3200G
• Vs Core i5-8300H
• Vs FX-6300 Six-Core
• Vs Core i5-7400
• Vs Core i7-4770K
• Vs Core i5-7300HQ
• Vs Core i5-6300U
• Vs Core i3-9100F
• Vs Core i7-7500U
• Vs Core i5-3570K
• Vs Core i5-6400
• Vs Core i5-9400
• Vs Core i7-3630QM
• Vs Core i7-8565U
• Vs Core i3-1005G1
• Vs Core i7-3770K
• Vs Ryzen 5 3550H
• Vs Pentium Gold 7505
• Vs Athlon Gold PRO 3150G
• Vs Pentium Gold G6500
• Vs Core i3-10100F
• Vs Ryzen 5 3350G
• Vs Core i3-9100TE
• Vs Ryzen 5 3450U
• Vs Core i5-10200H
• Vs Core i3-1115G4
• Vs Core i3-10300T
• Vs Athlon Gold PRO 3150GE
• Vs Core i3-9350K
• Vs Ryzen Embedded R1305G
• Vs Core i5-9300HF
• Vs Ryzen 5 3550U
• Vs Core i3-10305T
• Vs Core i3-10105T
• Vs Pentium Gold G6605
• Vs Pentium Gold G6505T
• Vs Pentium Gold G6505
• Vs Pentium Gold G6405T
• Vs Pentium Gold G6405
• Vs Core i3-1110G4
• Vs Core i3-1115GRE
• Vs Core i3-1115G4E
• Vs Core i3-1120G4
• Vs Core i3-1125G4
• Vs Athlon Silver 3050GE
• Vs Athlon 300GE
• Vs Athlon 320GE
• Vs Ryzen 5 3500C
• Vs Ryzen 7 3700C
• Vs Ryzen 3 5300U
• Vs Ryzen 3 3350U
• Vs Athlon PRO 300U
• Vs Core i5-1030NG7
• Vs Core i3-10100T
• Vs Core i5-8260U
• Vs Core i5-4470S
• Vs Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE
• Vs Ryzen 5 3580U
• Vs Core i7-10610U
• Vs Core i7-10510Y
• Vs Core i5-10310U
• Vs Core i5-7442EQ
• Vs Core i7-8565UC
• Vs Core i7-1060NG7
• Vs Core i7-8665UE
• Vs Core i5-8265UC
• Vs Core i5-8365UE
• Vs Core i3-9100T
• Vs Core i3-9320
• Vs Core i7-7820EQ
• Vs Core i3-9300
• Vs Core i3-8300
• Vs Core i3-9100
• Vs Core i7-8665U
• Vs Core i5-8365U
• Vs Core i3-9300T
• Vs Core i3-9350KF
• Vs Core i3-8100B
• Vs Core i5-8305G
• Vs Core i7-5850EQ
• Vs Core i5-4670R
• Vs Core i3-8100T
• Vs Core i5-8400T
• Vs Core i3-8300T
• Vs Core i3-8350K
• Vs Core i5-8350U
• Vs Core i7-8650U
• Vs Core i9-9880H
• Vs Ryzen 7 5825C
• Vs Ryzen 3 5425C
• Vs Ryzen 7 3750H