In Atomfall, the Core i3-3240 is slower than the Core i9-13900K. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $420 cheaper!
Core i3-3240
- Up to 76% cheaper – $128.99 vs $548.89
- Up to 76% cheaper
- Up to 70% better value in Atomfall – $0.67 vs $2.23/FPS
- Up to 70% better value in Atomfall
- Consumes up to 56% less energy – 55 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 56% less energy
Core i9-13900K
- Up to 29% faster in Atomfall – 246 vs 191 FPS
- Up to 29% faster in Atomfall
- Is 10 years and 23 days newer – Sep 27, 2022 vs Sep 03, 2012
- Is 10 years and 23 days newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i3-3240 vs Core i9-13900K: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-3240
Sep 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
191 FPS
78%
Min 1% FPS
143 FPS
77%
Price, $
$128.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.67/FPS
100%
Core i9-13900K
Sep 27th, 2022
Average FPS
246 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
185 FPS
100%
Price, $
$548.89
23%
Value, $/FPS
$2.23/FPS
30%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-3240 vs Core i9-13900K in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-3240 vs Core i9-13900K in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-3240
Sep 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
8%
L3 Cache
3 MB
8%
Base Frequency
3.4 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i9-13900K
Sep 27th, 2022
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3 GHz
88%
Turbo Frequency
5.8 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
5600 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-3240 Sep 3rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-13900K Sep 27th, 2022 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Sep 3rd, 2012 | Released | Sep 27th, 2022 |
| – | MSRP | $589.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA1700 |
55 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 |
