Key Differences
In short — Core i5-11600KF outperforms the cheaper Core i3-10320 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Core i3-10320 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-11600KF is 320 days newer than the cheaper Core i3-10320.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11600KF
- Performs up to 8% better in Battlefield IV than Core i3-10320 - 453 vs 421 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i3-10320 - 12 vs 8 threads
Advantages of Intel Core i3-10320
- Up to 27% cheaper than Core i5-11600KF - $87.75 vs $120.57
- Up to 23% better value when playing Battlefield IV than Core i5-11600KF - $0.23 vs $0.3 per FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than Intel Core i5-11600KF - 65 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-11600KF doesn't have integrated graphics
Battlefield IV
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
453
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.3/FPS
76%
Price, €
€133.83
72%
FPS Winner
Buy for €133.83 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 50 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
421
92%
Value, €/FPS
€0.23/FPS
100%
Price, €
€97.4
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €97.4 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 48 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 i5-11600KF | vs | Intel Core i3-10320 |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Core i5 | Collection | Core i3 |
Rocket Lake | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 4 |
12 | Threads | 8 |
3.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
4.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.6 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
39.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |