In Atomfall, the Core i3-3220T is slower than the Core i9-14900K. However, it's a better value for money, as it's $257 cheaper!
Core i3-3220T
- Up to 58% cheaper – $189.95 vs $447.16
- Up to 58% cheaper
- Up to 44% better value in Atomfall – $1.01 vs $1.80/FPS
- Up to 44% better value in Atomfall
- Consumes up to 72% less energy – 35 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 72% less energy
Core i9-14900K
- Up to 32% faster in Atomfall – 248 vs 188 FPS
- Up to 32% faster in Atomfall
- Is 11 years and 1 month newer – Oct 17, 2023 vs Sep 03, 2012
- Is 11 years and 1 month newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i3-3220T vs Core i9-14900K: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-3220T
Sep 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
188 FPS
76%
Min 1% FPS
141 FPS
76%
Price, $
$189.95
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.01/FPS
100%
Core i9-14900K
Oct 17th, 2023
Average FPS
248 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
186 FPS
100%
Price, $
$447.16
42%
Value, $/FPS
$1.8/FPS
56%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-3220T vs Core i9-14900K in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-3220T vs Core i9-14900K in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-3220T
Sep 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
8%
L3 Cache
3 MB
8%
Base Frequency
2.8 GHz
87%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i9-14900K
Oct 17th, 2023
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
5600 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-3220T Sep 3rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-14900K Oct 17th, 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 3rd, 2012 | Released | Oct 17th, 2023 |
| – | MSRP | $589.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA1700 |
35 W | Power Consumption | 125 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4), 5600 MHz (DDR5) |
| Intel HD 2500 | Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 770 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
