Key Differences
In short — Core i9-13900K 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 i9-13900K is 880 days newer than the cheaper Core i5-10400F.
Advantages of Core i5-10400F
- Up to 62% cheaper than Core i9-13900K - €200.00 vs €533.00
- Up to 46% better value when playing Starfield than Core i9-13900K - €3.39 vs €6.27 per FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than Intel Core i9-13900K - 65 vs 125 Watts
Advantages of Core i9-13900K
- Performs up to 44% better in Starfield than Core i5-10400F - 85 vs 59 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i5-10400F - 32 vs 12 threads
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-10400F doesn't have integrated graphics
Starfield
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
59
69%
Value, €/FPS
€3.39/FPS
100%
Price, €
€200
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €200 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 135 minutes ago
Buy for €533 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 138 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Core i5-10400F | vs | Core i9-13900K |
---|---|---|
Apr 30th, 2020 | Release Date | Sep 27th, 2022 |
Core i5 | Collection | Core i9 |
Comet Lake | Codename | Raptor Lake |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 24 |
12 | Threads | 32 |
2.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.0 GHz |
4.3 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.8 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
29.0x | Multiplier | 30.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |