In Atomfall, the Core i3-3220T is slightly slower than the Core i5-10600K and it's also a worse value for money, as it's $6 more expensive!
Core i3-3220T
- Consumes up to 72% less energy – 35 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 72% less energy
Core i5-10600K
- Up to 16% faster in Atomfall – 216 vs 187 FPS
- Up to 16% faster in Atomfall
- Is 7 years and 7 months newer – Apr 30, 2020 vs Sep 03, 2012
- Is 7 years and 7 months newer
- Up to 3% cheaper – $183.99 vs $189.95
- Up to 3% cheaper
- Up to 16% better value in Atomfall – $0.85 vs $1.01/FPS
- Up to 16% better value in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i3-3220T vs Core i5-10600K: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-3220T
Sep 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
187 FPS
87%
Min 1% FPS
140 FPS
86%
Price, $
$189.95
96%
Value, $/FPS
$1.01/FPS
84%
Core i5-10600K
Apr 30th, 2020
Average FPS
216 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
162 FPS
100%
Price, $
$183.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.85/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-3220T vs Core i5-10600K in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-3220T vs Core i5-10600K in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-3220T
Sep 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
3 MB
25%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
68%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i5-10600K
Apr 30th, 2020
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
4.1 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.8 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-3220T Sep 3rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-10600K Apr 30th, 2020 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 3rd, 2012 | Released | Apr 30th, 2020 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA1200 |
35 W | Power Consumption | 125 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
| Intel HD 2500 | Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 630 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
