Core i3-3217U vs Core i5-10400F in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
The Core i3-3217U is at least 2x slower gaming CPU than the Core i5-10400F. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Advantages of the Core i3-3217U
- Consumes up to 74% less energy – 17 vs 65 Watts
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU as it has integrated graphics
Advantages of the Core i5-10400F
- At least 2x faster CPU for gaming
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously – 12 vs 4 threads
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 FPS Calculator
The CPU's performance with selected game settings
Core i3-3217U
Jun 1st, 2012
Average FPS
177
87%
Min 1% FPS
123
88%
Price, $
Out of Stock
Value, $/FPS
Not Available
All items are out of stock.
Core i5-10400F
Apr 30th, 2020
Average FPS
203
100%
Min 1% FPS
139
100%
Price, $
$158.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.78/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 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-10400F |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jun 1st, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
| Not Available | MSRP | Not Available |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| Intel BGA 1023 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
17 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| unknown | RAM | DDR4 @ 2666 MHz |
Intel HD 4000 | Integrated Graphics | No |
| No | Overclockable | No |
