Key Differences
In short — Core i5-11600K outperforms the cheaper Core i5-10400F on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Core i5-10400F is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-11600K is 320 days newer than the cheaper Core i5-10400F.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11600K
- Performs up to 20% better in Starfield than Core i5-10400F - 71 vs 59 FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-10400F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i5-10400F
- Up to 55% cheaper than Core i5-11600K - €91.6 vs €205.24
- Up to 46% better value when playing Starfield than Core i5-11600K - €1.55 vs €2.89 per FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than Intel Core i5-11600K - 65 vs 125 Watts
Starfield
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
71
100%
Value, €/FPS
€2.89/FPS
53%
Price, €
€205.24
44%
FPS Winner
Buy for €205.24 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 139 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
59
83%
Value, €/FPS
€1.55/FPS
100%
Price, €
€91.6
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €91.6 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 140 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i5-11600K | vs | Intel Core i5-10400F |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Core i5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Rocket Lake | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 6 |
12 | Threads | 12 |
3.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
4.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
39.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
UHD Graphics 750 | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |