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 i5-10400F
- Up to 42% cheaper than Core i5-11600K - £98.8 vs £169.99
- Up to 25% better value when playing Counter-Strike 2 than Core i5-11600K - £0.27 vs £0.36 per FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than Intel Core i5-11600K - 65 vs 125 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11600K
- Performs up to 28% better in Counter-Strike 2 than Core i5-10400F - 473 vs 369 FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-10400F doesn't have integrated graphics
Counter-Strike 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
369
78%
Value, £/FPS
£0.27/FPS
100%
Price, £
£98.8
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £98.8 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 8141 minutes ago
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
473
100%
Value, £/FPS
£0.36/FPS
75%
Price, £
£169.99
58%
FPS Winner
Buy for £169.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 8140 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i5-10400F | vs | Intel Core i5-11600K |
---|---|---|
Apr 30th, 2020 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2021 |
Core i5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Comet Lake | Codename | Rocket Lake |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 6 |
12 | Threads | 12 |
2.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
4.3 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.9 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
29.0x | Multiplier | 39.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 750 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |