Key Differences
In short — Core i9-13900KS outperforms the cheaper Core i3-10105F on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Core i3-10105F is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-13900KS is 667 days newer than the cheaper Core i3-10105F.
Advantages of Core i3-10105F
- Up to 82% cheaper than Core i9-13900KS - $68.67 vs $377.48
- Up to 78% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i9-13900KS - $0.37 vs $1.68 per FPS
- Consumes up to 57% less energy than Intel Core i9-13900KS - 65 vs 150 Watts
Advantages of Core i9-13900KS
- Performs up to 20% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i3-10105F - 225 vs 188 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i3-10105F - 32 vs 8 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i3-10105F doesn't have integrated graphics
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
188
84%
Value, €/FPS
€0.37/FPS
100%
Price, €
€68.67
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €68.67 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 297 minutes ago
Desktop • Jan 12th, 2023
FPS
225
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.68/FPS
22%
Price, €
€377.48
18%
FPS Winner
Buy for €377.48 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 297 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Desktop • Jan 12th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Core i3-10105F | vs | Core i9-13900KS |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | Jan 12th, 2023 |
Core i3 | Collection | Core i9 |
Comet Lake | Codename | Raptor Lake |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 24 |
8 | Threads | 32 |
3.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
4.4 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 6.0 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 150 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
37.0x | Multiplier | 32.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |