In Rust, the Core i3-350M is slightly slower than the Core i5-9400F and it's also a worse value for money, as it's $10 more expensive!
Core i3-350M
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 35 vs 65 Watts
- Consumes up to 46% 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 8% faster in Rust – 226 vs 209 FPS
- Up to 8% faster in Rust
- Is 9 years newer – Jan 08, 2019 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 9 years newer
- Up to 8% cheaper – $119.99 vs $129.94
- Up to 8% cheaper
- Up to 15% better value in Rust – $0.53 vs $0.62/FPS
- Up to 15% better value in Rust
Rust FPS Calculator
Core i3-350M vs Core i5-9400F: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-350M
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
209 FPS
92%
Min 1% FPS
39 FPS
72%
Price, $
$129.94
92%
Value, $/FPS
$0.62/FPS
85%
Core i5-9400F
Jan 8th, 2019
Average FPS
226 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
54 FPS
100%
Price, $
$119.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.53/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-350M vs Core i5-9400F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-350M vs Core i5-9400F in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-350M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
3 MB
33%
Base Frequency
2.267 GHz
78%
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
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-350M Jan 7th, 2010 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-9400F Jan 8th, 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jan 7th, 2010 | Released | Jan 8th, 2019 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGAG1 | Socket | LGA1151 |
35 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
