In Atomfall, the Core i7-920 is slightly slower than the Core i5-9400F. However, it's a better value for money, as it's $40 cheaper!
Core i7-920
- Up to 33% cheaper – $80.00 vs $119.99
- Up to 33% cheaper
- Up to 26% better value in Atomfall – $0.42 vs $0.57/FPS
- Up to 26% better value in Atomfall
Core i5-9400F
- Up to 12% faster in Atomfall – 210 vs 188 FPS
- Up to 12% faster in Atomfall
- Is 10 years and 1 month newer – Jan 08, 2019 vs Nov 17, 2008
- Is 10 years and 1 month newer
- Consumes up to 50% less energy – 65 vs 130 Watts
- Consumes up to 50% less energy
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i7-920 vs Core i5-9400F: Comparison of performance and price
Core i7-920
Nov 17th, 2008
Average FPS
188 FPS
90%
Min 1% FPS
141 FPS
89%
Price, $
$80
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.42/FPS
100%
Core i5-9400F
Jan 8th, 2019
Average FPS
210 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
158 FPS
100%
Price, $
$119.99
66%
Value, $/FPS
$0.57/FPS
74%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i7-920 vs Core i5-9400F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i7-920 vs Core i5-9400F in core CPU performance specifications
Core i7-920
Nov 17th, 2008
Cores
4-core
67%
L3 Cache
8 MB
89%
Base Frequency
2.666 GHz
92%
Turbo Frequency
2.933 GHz
72%
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 i7-920 Nov 17th, 2008 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-9400F Jan 8th, 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Nov 17th, 2008 | Released | Jan 8th, 2019 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1366 | Socket | LGA1151 |
| 130 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
