In Atomfall, the Core i3-3210 is slightly slower than the Core i5-9400 and it's also a worse value for money, as it's $20 more expensive!
Core i3-3210
- Consumes up to 15% less energy – 55 vs 65 Watts
- Consumes up to 15% less energy
Core i5-9400
- Up to 11% faster in Atomfall – 209 vs 189 FPS
- Up to 11% faster in Atomfall
- Is 5 years and 9 months newer – Oct 19, 2018 vs Jan 01, 2013
- Is 5 years and 9 months newer
- Up to 13% cheaper – $139.00 vs $159.00
- Up to 13% cheaper
- Up to 21% better value in Atomfall – $0.66 vs $0.84/FPS
- Up to 21% better value in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i3-3210 vs Core i5-9400: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-3210
Jan 1st, 2013
Average FPS
189 FPS
90%
Min 1% FPS
141 FPS
90%
Price, $
$159
87%
Value, $/FPS
$0.84/FPS
79%
Core i5-9400
Oct 19th, 2018
Average FPS
209 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
157 FPS
100%
Price, $
$139
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.66/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-3210 vs Core i5-9400 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-3210 vs Core i5-9400 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-3210
Jan 1st, 2013
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
3 MB
33%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i5-9400
Oct 19th, 2018
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
9 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.9 GHz
91%
Turbo Frequency
4.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-3210 Jan 1st, 2013 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-9400 Oct 19th, 2018 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jan 1st, 2013 | Released | Oct 19th, 2018 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA1151 |
55 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
| Intel HD 2500 | Integrated GPU | UHD 630 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
