In Atomfall, the Core i3-3217U is slightly slower than the Core i5-10400F. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i3-3217U
- Consumes up to 74% less energy – 17 vs 65 Watts
- Consumes up to 74% 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 i5-10400F
- Up to 15% faster in Atomfall – 212 vs 184 FPS
- Up to 15% faster in Atomfall
- Is 7 years and 10 months newer – Apr 30, 2020 vs Jun 01, 2012
- Is 7 years and 10 months newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i3-3217U vs Core i5-10400F: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core i5-10400F
Apr 30th, 2020
Average FPS
212 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
159 FPS
100%
Price, $
$175.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.83/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-3217U vs Core i5-10400F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-3217U vs Core i5-10400F in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-3217U
Jun 1st, 2012
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
3 MB
25%
Base Frequency
1.8 GHz
62%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. unknown RAM Speed
MHz
Core i5-10400F
Apr 30th, 2020
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.9 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.3 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-3217U Jun 1st, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-10400F Apr 30th, 2020 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jun 1st, 2012 | Released | Apr 30th, 2020 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| Intel BGA 1023 | Socket | LGA1200 |
17 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| unknown | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
Intel HD 4000 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
