In Atomfall, the Core i3-3210 is slower than the Core i9-14900K. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $288 cheaper!
Core i3-3210
- Up to 64% cheaper – $159.00 vs $447.16
- Up to 64% cheaper
- Up to 53% better value in Atomfall – $0.84 vs $1.80/FPS
- Up to 53% better value in Atomfall
- Consumes up to 56% less energy – 55 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 56% less energy
Core i9-14900K
- Up to 32% faster in Atomfall – 248 vs 188 FPS
- Up to 32% faster in Atomfall
- Is 10 years and 9 months newer – Oct 17, 2023 vs Jan 01, 2013
- Is 10 years and 9 months newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i3-3210 vs Core i9-14900K: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-3210
Jan 1st, 2013
Average FPS
188 FPS
76%
Min 1% FPS
141 FPS
76%
Price, $
$159
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.84/FPS
100%
Core i9-14900K
Oct 17th, 2023
Average FPS
248 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
186 FPS
100%
Price, $
$447.16
35%
Value, $/FPS
$1.8/FPS
47%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-3210 vs Core i9-14900K in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-3210 vs Core i9-14900K in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-3210
Jan 1st, 2013
Cores
2-core
8%
L3 Cache
3 MB
8%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i9-14900K
Oct 17th, 2023
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
5600 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-3210 Jan 1st, 2013 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-14900K Oct 17th, 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jan 1st, 2013 | Released | Oct 17th, 2023 |
| – | MSRP | $589.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA1700 |
55 W | Power Consumption | 125 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4), 5600 MHz (DDR5) |
| Intel HD 2500 | Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 770 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
