Key Differences
In short — Core i9-11900K outperforms the cheaper Core i9-10900F on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Core i9-10900F is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-11900K is 320 days newer than the cheaper Core i9-10900F.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-11900K
- Performs up to 8% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i9-10900F - 209 vs 193 FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-10900F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Up to 15% cheaper than Core i9-11900K - $164.51 vs $193.77
- Up to 8% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i9-11900K - $0.95 vs $1.03 per FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than Intel Core i9-11900K - 65 vs 125 Watts
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
209
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.03/FPS
92%
Price, €
€215.08
84%
FPS Winner
Buy for €215.08 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 8954 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
193
92%
Value, €/FPS
€0.95/FPS
100%
Price, €
€182.61
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €182.61 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 8954 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i9-11900K | vs | Intel Core i9-10900F |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Core i9 | Collection | Core i9 |
Rocket Lake | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 10 |
16 | Threads | 20 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
5.3 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
125 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
UHD Graphics 750 | Integrated Graphics | None |
Yes | Overclockable | No |