In Atomfall, the Core i3-3210 is slightly slower than the Core i5-9400F and it's also a worse value for money, as it's $39 more expensive!
Core i3-3210
- Consumes up to 15% less energy – 55 vs 65 Watts
- Consumes up to 15% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Core i5-9400F
- Up to 12% faster in Atomfall – 210 vs 188 FPS
- Up to 12% faster in Atomfall
- Is 6 years and 6 days newer – Jan 08, 2019 vs Jan 01, 2013
- Is 6 years and 6 days newer
- Up to 25% cheaper – $119.99 vs $159.00
- Up to 25% cheaper
- Up to 32% better value in Atomfall – $0.57 vs $0.84/FPS
- Up to 32% better value in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i3-3210 vs Core i5-9400F: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-3210
Jan 1st, 2013
Average FPS
188 FPS
90%
Min 1% FPS
141 FPS
90%
Price, $
$159
75%
Value, $/FPS
$0.84/FPS
68%
Core i5-9400F
Jan 8th, 2019
Average FPS
210 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
157 FPS
100%
Price, $
$119.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.57/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-3210 vs Core i5-9400F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-3210 vs Core i5-9400F 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 i5-9400F
Jan 8th, 2019
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 i5-9400F Jan 8th, 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jan 1st, 2013 | Released | Jan 8th, 2019 |
| – | 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 | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
