In Atomfall, the Core i9-9900T is slightly faster than the Core i3-3210. However, it's a much worse value for money, as it's $283 more expensive!
Core i9-9900T
- Up to 13% faster in Atomfall – 213 vs 189 FPS
- Up to 13% faster in Atomfall
- Is 6 years and 3 months newer – Apr 23, 2019 vs Jan 01, 2013
- Is 6 years and 3 months newer
- Consumes up to 36% less energy – 35 vs 55 Watts
- Consumes up to 36% less energy
Core i3-3210
- Up to 64% cheaper – $159.00 vs $442.00
- Up to 64% cheaper
- Up to 59% better value in Atomfall – $0.84 vs $2.07/FPS
- Up to 59% better value in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i9-9900T vs Core i3-3210: Comparison of performance and price
Core i9-9900T
Apr 23rd, 2019
Average FPS
213 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
100%
Price, $
$442
35%
Value, $/FPS
$2.07/FPS
41%
Core i3-3210
Jan 1st, 2013
Average FPS
189 FPS
89%
Min 1% FPS
142 FPS
89%
Price, $
$159
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.84/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i9-9900T vs Core i3-3210 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i9-9900T vs Core i3-3210 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i9-9900T
Apr 23rd, 2019
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
16 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.1 GHz
66%
Turbo Frequency
4.4 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Core i3-3210
Jan 1st, 2013
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
3 MB
19%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i9-9900T Apr 23rd, 2019 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i3-3210 Jan 1st, 2013 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Apr 23rd, 2019 | Released | Jan 1st, 2013 |
| $423.00 | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1151 | Socket | LGA1155 |
35 W | Power Consumption | 55 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2666 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
| UHD Graphics 630 | Integrated GPU | Intel HD 2500 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
