In Atomfall, the Core i3-3217U is slower than the Core i9-13900F. 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 i9-13900F
- Up to 33% faster in Atomfall – 243 vs 183 FPS
- Up to 33% faster in Atomfall
- Is 10 years and 7 months newer – Jan 04, 2023 vs Jun 01, 2012
- Is 10 years and 7 months newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i3-3217U vs Core i9-13900F: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core i9-13900F
Jan 4th, 2023
Average FPS
243 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
182 FPS
100%
Price, $
$529.91
100%
Value, $/FPS
$2.18/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-3217U vs Core i9-13900F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-3217U vs Core i9-13900F in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-3217U
Jun 1st, 2012
Cores
2-core
8%
L3 Cache
3 MB
8%
Base Frequency
1.8 GHz
90%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. unknown RAM Speed
MHz
Core i9-13900F
Jan 4th, 2023
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
5.6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
5600 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-3217U Jun 1st, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-13900F Jan 4th, 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jun 1st, 2012 | Released | Jan 4th, 2023 |
| – | MSRP | $524.00 |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| Intel BGA 1023 | Socket | LGA1700 |
17 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| unknown | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4), 5600 MHz (DDR5) |
Intel HD 4000 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
