In Deathloop, the Core i5-9400 is slightly slower than the Core i3-330M and it's also a worse value for money, as it's $40 more expensive!
Core i5-9400
- Is 8 years and 9 months newer – Oct 19, 2018 vs Jan 07, 2010
- Is 8 years and 9 months newer
Core i3-330M
- Up to 5% faster in Deathloop – 229 vs 219 FPS
- Up to 5% faster in Deathloop
- Up to 29% cheaper – $98.95 vs $139.00
- Up to 29% cheaper
- Up to 32% better value in Deathloop – $0.43 vs $0.63/FPS
- Up to 32% better value in Deathloop
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 35 vs 65 Watts
- Consumes up to 46% less energy
Deathloop FPS Calculator
Core i5-9400 vs Core i3-330M: Comparison of performance and price
Core i5-9400
Oct 19th, 2018
Average FPS
219 FPS
96%
Min 1% FPS
164 FPS
96%
Price, $
$139
71%
Value, $/FPS
$0.63/FPS
68%
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Average FPS
229 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
171 FPS
100%
Price, $
$98.95
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.43/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-9400 vs Core i3-330M in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-9400 vs Core i3-330M in core CPU performance specifications
Core i5-9400
Oct 19th, 2018
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%
Core i3-330M
Jan 7th, 2010
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
3 MB
33%
Base Frequency
2.133 GHz
74%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
1066 MHz
40%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i5-9400 Oct 19th, 2018 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i3-330M Jan 7th, 2010 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Oct 19th, 2018 | Released | Jan 7th, 2010 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Laptop |
| LGA1151 | Socket | LGAG1 |
| 65 W | Power Consumption | 35 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2666 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | 1066 MHz (DDR3) |
| UHD 630 | Integrated GPU | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
