Key Differences
In short — Core i3-9100F outperforms the cheaper Core i3-4130T on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Core i3-4130T is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i3-9100F is 2060 days newer than the cheaper Core i3-4130T.
Advantages of Intel Core i3-9100F
- Performs up to 4% better in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II than Core i3-4130T - 204 vs 197 FPS
Advantages of Intel Core i3-4130T
- Up to 77% cheaper than Core i3-9100F - €30.28 vs €128.88
- Up to 76% better value when playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II than Core i3-9100F - €0.15 vs €0.63 per FPS
- Consumes up to 46% less energy than Intel Core i3-9100F - 35 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i3-9100F doesn't have integrated graphics
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Apr 23rd, 2019
FPS
204
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.63/FPS
23%
Price, €
€128.88
23%
FPS Winner
Buy for €128.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 63 minutes ago
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2013
FPS
197
96%
Value, €/FPS
€0.15/FPS
100%
Price, €
€30.28
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €30.28 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 63 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Apr 23rd, 2019
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2013
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i3-9100F | vs | Intel Core i3-4130T |
---|---|---|
Apr 23rd, 2019 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2013 |
Core i3 | Collection | Core i3 |
Coffee Lake | Codename | Haswell |
Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | Intel Socket 1150 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 4 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
4.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
65 W | TDP | 35 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
36.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4400 |
No | Overclockable | No |