In Atomfall, the Core i3-3240 is slightly slower than the Core i5-9400F and it's also a worse value for money, as it's $9 more expensive!
Core i3-3240
- Consumes up to 15% less energy – 55 vs 65 Watts
- Consumes up to 15% 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 i5-9400F
- Up to 10% faster in Atomfall – 211 vs 191 FPS
- Up to 10% faster in Atomfall
- Is 6 years and 4 months newer – Jan 08, 2019 vs Sep 03, 2012
- Is 6 years and 4 months newer
- Up to 7% cheaper – $119.99 vs $128.99
- Up to 7% cheaper
- Up to 16% better value in Atomfall – $0.56 vs $0.67/FPS
- Up to 16% better value in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i3-3240 vs Core i5-9400F: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-3240
Sep 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
191 FPS
91%
Min 1% FPS
143 FPS
91%
Price, $
$128.99
93%
Value, $/FPS
$0.67/FPS
84%
Core i5-9400F
Jan 8th, 2019
Average FPS
211 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
158 FPS
100%
Price, $
$119.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.56/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-3240 vs Core i5-9400F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-3240 vs Core i5-9400F in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-3240
Sep 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
3 MB
33%
Base Frequency
3.4 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i5-9400F
Jan 8th, 2019
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
9 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.9 GHz
85%
Turbo Frequency
4.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-3240 Sep 3rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-9400F Jan 8th, 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 3rd, 2012 | Released | Jan 8th, 2019 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA1151 |
55 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
Intel HD 2500 | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
