Core i3-3217U vs Core i9-10900F in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
The Core i3-3217U is at least 2x slower gaming CPU than the Core i9-10900F. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Advantages of the Core i3-3217U
- Consumes up to 74% less energy – 17 vs 65 Watts
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU as it has integrated graphics
Advantages of the Core i9-10900F
- At least 2x faster CPU for gaming
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously – 20 vs 4 threads
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 FPS Calculator
The CPU's performance with selected game settings
Core i3-3217U
Jun 1st, 2012
Average FPS
178
85%
Min 1% FPS
124
87%
Price, €
Out of Stock
Value, €/FPS
Not Available
All items are out of stock.
Core i9-10900F
Apr 30th, 2020
Average FPS
209
100%
Min 1% FPS
143
100%
Price, €
Out of Stock
Value, €/FPS
Not Available
All items are out of stock.
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-3217U vs Core i9-10900F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-3217U vs Core i9-10900F in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-3217U
Jun 1st, 2012
Cores
2-core
20%
L3 Cache
3 MB
15%
Base Frequency
1.8 GHz
64%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. unknown RAM Speed
MHz
Core i9-10900F
Apr 30th, 2020
Cores
10-core
100%
L3 Cache
20 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
5.2 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2933 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-3217U | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-10900F |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jun 1st, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
| Not Available | MSRP | $464.00 |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| Intel BGA 1023 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
17 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| unknown | RAM | DDR4 @ 2933 MHz |
Intel HD 4000 | Integrated Graphics | No |
| No | Overclockable | No |
