Key Differences
In short — Core i5-10400F outperforms the cheaper Core i3-3220 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Core i3-3220 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-10400F is 2796 days newer than the cheaper Core i3-3220.
Advantages of Intel Core i3-3220
- Up to 56% cheaper than Core i5-10400F - CA$69.88 vs CA$157.24
- Up to 42% better value when playing Starfield than Core i5-10400F - CA$1.55 vs CA$2.67 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i5-10400F - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-10400F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i5-10400F
- Performs up to 31% better in Starfield than Core i3-3220 - 59 vs 45 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i3-3220 - 12 vs 4 threads
Starfield
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 3rd, 2012
FPS
45
76%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$1.55/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$69.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$69.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 9950 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
59
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$2.67/FPS
58%
Price, CA$
CA$157.24
44%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$157.24 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 9950 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i3-3220 | vs | Intel Core i5-10400F |
---|---|---|
Sep 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Core i3 | Collection | Core i5 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 6 |
4 | Threads | 12 |
3.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
33.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
Intel HD 2500 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |