In Deathloop, the Core i3-6100 is slightly slower than the Core i5-650 and it's also a slightly worse value for money, as it's $7 more expensive!
Core i3-6100
- Is 5 years and 7 months newer – Sep 01, 2015 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 5 years and 7 months newer
- Consumes up to 30% less energy – 51 vs 73 Watts
- Consumes up to 30% less energy
Core i5-650
- Up to 2% faster in Deathloop – 222 vs 218 FPS
- Up to 2% faster in Deathloop
- Up to 10% cheaper – $63.33 vs $70.64
- Up to 10% cheaper
- Up to 12% better value in Deathloop – $0.28 vs $0.32/FPS
- Up to 12% better value in Deathloop
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Core i3-6100 vs Core i5-650: Comparison of performance and price
Core i3-6100
Sep 1st, 2015
Average FPS
218 FPS
98%
Min 1% FPS
164 FPS
98%
Price, $
$70.64
89%
Value, $/FPS
$0.32/FPS
88%
Core i5-650
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
222 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
167 FPS
100%
Price, $
$63.33
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.28/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-6100 vs Core i5-650 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-6100 vs Core i5-650 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-6100
Sep 1st, 2015
Cores
2-core
100%
L3 Cache
4 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.7 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2133 MHz
100%
Core i5-650
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
100%
L3 Cache
4 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
86%
Turbo Frequency
3.466 GHz
100%
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1333 MHz
62%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-6100 Sep 1st, 2015 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-650 Jan 7th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Sep 1st, 2015 | Released | Jan 7th, 2010 |
| – | MSRP | $176.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1151 | Socket | LGA1156 |
51 W | Power Consumption | 73 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2133 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | 1333 MHz (DDR3) |
| Intel HD 530 | Integrated GPU | Intel HD |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
