Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Core i9-10900F outperforms the more expensive Core i9-9940X on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Core i9-10900F is 559 days newer than the more expensive Core i9-9940X.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 3% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Core i9-9940X - 136 vs 132 FPS
- Up to 65% cheaper than Core i9-9940X - €294.53 vs €839.0
- Up to 66% better value when playing Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Core i9-9940X - €2.17 vs €6.36 per FPS
- Consumes up to 61% less energy than Intel Core i9-9940X - 65 vs 165 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i9-9940X
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i9-10900F - 28 vs 20 threads
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
136
100%
Value, €/FPS
€2.17/FPS
100%
Price, €
€294.53
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for €294.53 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 131 minutes ago
Buy for €839 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 131 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Desktop • Oct 19th, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i9-10900F | vs | Intel Core i9-9940X |
---|---|---|
Apr 30th, 2020 | Release Date | Oct 19th, 2018 |
Core i9 | Collection | Core i9 |
Comet Lake | Codename | Skylake |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 2066 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
10 | Cores | 14 |
20 | Threads | 28 |
2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.3 GHz |
5.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.4 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 165 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
28.0x | Multiplier | 33.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |