In Atomfall, the Core i3-3220T is slightly slower than the Core i5-9600K and it's also a worse value for money, as it's $31 more expensive!
Core i3-3220T
- Consumes up to 63% less energy – 35 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 63% less energy
Core i5-9600K
- Up to 14% faster in Atomfall – 213 vs 187 FPS
- Up to 14% faster in Atomfall
- Is 6 years and 1 month newer – Oct 19, 2018 vs Sep 03, 2012
- Is 6 years and 1 month newer
- Up to 16% cheaper – $159.00 vs $189.95
- Up to 16% cheaper
- Up to 27% better value in Atomfall – $0.74 vs $1.01/FPS
- Up to 27% better value in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i3-3220T vs Core i5-9600K: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-3220T
Sep 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
187 FPS
88%
Min 1% FPS
140 FPS
88%
Price, $
$189.95
83%
Value, $/FPS
$1.01/FPS
73%
Core i5-9600K
Oct 19th, 2018
Average FPS
213 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
100%
Price, $
$159
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.74/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-3220T vs Core i5-9600K in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-3220T vs Core i5-9600K in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-3220T
Sep 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
3 MB
33%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
76%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i5-9600K
Oct 19th, 2018
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
9 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.7 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.6 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 i5-9600K Oct 19th, 2018 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 3rd, 2012 | Released | Oct 19th, 2018 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA1151 |
35 W | Power Consumption | 95 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
| Intel HD 2500 | Integrated GPU | UHD 630 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
