Core i3-10100F vs Core i5-10400F: Gaming Benchmark/ Which is Better/ Hashrate: When you buy a new computer, it all starts with the processor. Think about it, because no one says that they are planning to build a system based on an NVIDIA graphics card. There is no doubt that a video card is more important for games, but picking the wrong processor, you will no doubt hit a wall, beyond which no video card will allow you to get through. This is not an easy task, but we understand its importance, so we will continue.
If you have $ 400 for your processor, then you can skip reading our material. Whichever you choose, you have a fast, modern stone that can fire up any graphics card. A completely different situation with buyers of budget assemblies. And here lies the most important problem: there are much more such assemblies, which is why it is important to give them the maximum of our attention. And as a result, it is the right choice that will provide these comrades with advantages that will allow them to feel comfortable in any modern games.
Today we will study the results of testing low-cost Intel and AMD processors. This is not to say that these are completely budget chips, because there are even less powerful models, but we are not considering them for building a gaming assembly. So, the guys from the GECID website did everything possible so that our readers could understand whether they should buy this or that processor. Let’s take a look at the test results, along the way we will choose the most optimal stone for building a gaming budget assembly.
Core i3-10100F vs Core i5-10400F Comparison: Which Is Better
Intel Core i5-10400 vs Intel Core i3-10100: Benchmarks
Speed in games
- Core i5-10400 – 85.6 (+3.3%)
- Core i3-10100 – 82.8
Performance in games and similar applications according to our tests.
The greatest impact on the result is the performance of 4 cores, if any, and performance per core, since most games fully use no more than 4 cores.
The speed of caches and working with RAM is also important.
Speed in office use
- Core i5-10400 – 84.8
- Core i3-10100 – 84.8
Performance in day-to-day work such as browsers and office programs.
The greatest impact on the result is the performance of 1 core, since most of these applications use only one, ignoring the rest.
Likewise, many professional applications, such as various CADs, ignore multi-threaded performance.
Speed in heavy applications
- Core i5-10400 – 51 (+9.8%) –
- Core i3-10100 46
Performance in resource-intensive tasks with a maximum of 8 cores.
The performance of all cores and their number has the greatest impact on the result, since most of such applications willingly use all cores and accordingly increase the speed of work.
At the same time, individual work intervals can be demanding on the performance of one or two cores, for example, applying filters in the editor.
Side-by-side comparison of key parameters
release year
- Intel Core i3-10100F 2020
- Intel Core i5-10400F 2020
Number of cores
- Intel Core i3-10100F Quad Core
- Intel Core i5-10400F 6 cores
Number of threads
- Intel Core i3-10100F 8 threads
- Intel Core i5-10400F 12 threads
Clock frequency
- Intel Core i3-10100F 3600 MHz
- Intel Core i5-10400F 2900 MHz
Auto acceleration frequency
- Intel Core i3-10100F 4300 MHz
- Intel Core i5-10400F 4300 MHz
Technical process
- Intel Core i3-10100F 14 Nm
- Intel Core i5-10400F 14 Nm
Number of transistors
- Intel Core i3-10100F No data
- Intel Core i5-10400F No data
TDP (Heat Dissipation)
- Intel Core i3-10100F 65W
- Intel Core i5-10400F 65W
Core temperature (max)
- Intel Core i3-10100F 100 ° C
- Intel Core i5-10400F 100 ° C
Case temperature (max)
- Intel Core i3-10100F No data
- Intel Core i5-10400F 72 ° C
Number of memory channels
- Intel Core i3-10100F 2 RAM channels
- Intel Core i5-10400F 2 RAM channels
RAM speed
- Intel Core i3-10100F 41.6 GB / s
- Intel Core i5-10400F 41.6 GB / s
PCI Express Lines
- Intel Core i3-10100F 16 PCIe lanes
- Intel Core i5-10400F 16 PCIe lanes
Crystal size
- Intel Core i3-10100F 126mm 2
- Intel Core i5-10400F No data
Cash L1
- Intel Core i3-10100F 256 KB
- Intel Core i5-10400F 384 KB
L2 cache
- Intel Core i3-10100F 1024 KB
- Intel Core i5-10400F 1536 KB
Cash L3
- Intel Core i3-10100F 6144 KB
- Intel Core i5-10400F 12288 KB
Intel Core i5-10400 vs Intel Core i3-10100: Advantages of both processors
| Intel Core i3-10100F | Intel Core i5-10400F |
|---|---|
| Dual Intel processors | |
| Two processors belong to the same Core family | |
| Two processor models released in 2020 | |
| These processors are based on a unified Comet Lake core microarchitecture. | |
| Two CPU models are desktop type | |
| Two processors run on an LGA1200 socket | |
| Both processors have the same system bus speed of 8 GT / s | |
| The two CPU models have the same frequency in the turbo mode of 4300 MHz | |
| The technological process of both CPU models is 14 nm | |
| Thermal dissipation of these processor models is 65 W | |
| The allowed core temperature of these processors is 100 ° C | |
| The number of channels for working with RAM for both CPUs is 2 | |
| The maximum amount of RAM for these processors is 128 GB | |
| The maximum memory bandwidth of the two models is 41.6 GB / s | |
| Both CPU models support PCI-e version 3.0 | |
| The presented processors support the same number of PCI-e lanes – 16 | |
| Dual processors support 64 bit instruction set |
| Intel Core i3-10100F | Intel Core i5-10400F |
|---|---|
| Core i3-10100F belongs to the line of Core i3 processors | Core i5-10400F belongs to the Core i5 processor line |
| Core i3-10100F seriously loses in terms of the number of cores, 4 versus 6 | Core i5-10400F greatly outperforms in terms of the number of cores, 6 versus 4 |
| Core i3-10100F is noticeably inferior in terms of the number of threads, 8 versus 12 | Core i5-10400F significantly outperforms in the number of threads, 12 versus 8 |
| Core i3-10100F slightly outperforms in terms of frequency, 3600 MHz versus 2900 MHz from a competitor | Core i5-10400F is not much behind in terms of clock speed, 2900 MHz versus 3600 MHz |
| The L1 cache of the CPU Core i3-10100F is much smaller in comparison with the Core i5-10400F and is 256 Kilobytes | The cache of the 1st level of the CPU Core i5-10400F is much higher compared to the Core i3-10100F and is equal to 384 Kilobytes |
| The L2 cache size of the CPU Core i3-10100F is much less in comparison with the Core i5-10400F and is equal to 1024 KB | The L2 cache of the Core i5-10400F processor is much higher compared to the Core i3-10100F and is 1536 KB |
| The cache of the third level of the CPU Core i3-10100F is much less than that of the Core i5-10400F and is 6144 KB | The cache of the third level of the Core i5-10400F processor is significantly higher than that of the Core i3-10100F and is equal to 12288 KB |
Comparison of instructions and technologies
| Technology name or instruction | Intel Core i3-10100F | Intel Core i5-10400F | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Turbo Boost | 2.0 | 2.0 | Intel auto overclocking technology. |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | Intel auto overclocking technology. |
| Technology name or instruction | Intel Core i3-10100F | Intel Core i5-10400F | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| EIST (Enhanced Intel SpeedStep) | Enhanced energy-saving Intel SpeedStep technology. | ||
| Thermal Monitoring | Temperature monitoring. | ||
| Idle states | Idle states. |
| Technology name or instruction | Intel Core i3-10100F | Intel Core i5-10400F | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMX (Multimedia Extensions) | Multimedia extensions. | ||
| SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) | Streaming SIMD processor extension. | ||
| SSE2 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 2) | Streaming SIMD Processor Extension 2. | ||
| SSE3 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 3) | Streaming SIMD Processor Extension 3. | ||
| SSSE3 (Supplemental Streaming SIMD Extension 3) | Optional SIMD extensions for streaming 3. | ||
| EM64T (Extended Memory 64-bit Technology) | 64-bit extended memory technology. | ||
| NX (Execute disable bit) | Execution inhibit bit. | ||
| SSE4 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 4) | Streaming SIMD Processor Extension 4. | ||
| AES (Intel Advanced Encryption Standard New Instructions) | Expansion of the command system. | ||
| AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions) | Expansion of the command system. | ||
| AVX 2.0 (Advanced Vector Extensions 2.0) | Extension of the command system 2.0. | ||
| BMI1, BMI2 (Bit manipulation instructions sets) | A set of X86 bit manipulation commands. | ||
| F16C (16-bit Floating-Point conversion) | 16-bit floating point conversion. | ||
| FMA3 (Fused Multiply-Add 3) | Multiply-add with single rounding (FMA3). |
| Technology name or instruction | Intel Core i3-10100F | Intel Core i5-10400F | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| TXT (Trusted Execution Technology) | Trusted execution technology. | ||
| MPX (Intel Memory Protection Extensions) | – | Memory protection extensions. | |
| SGX (Software Guard Extensions) | Yes with Intel® ME | Yes with Intel® ME | Intel Software Protection Extensions. |
| SMAP (Supervisor Mode Access Prevention) | – | Prevent access in supervisor mode. | |
| SMEP (Supervisor Mode Execution Prevention) | Prevent execution in supervisor mode. | ||
| Secure Key | Secure key technology. | ||
| Identity Protection | Personal protection. | ||
| EDB (Execute Disable Bit) | Execute trip bit. |
| Technology name or instruction | Intel Core i3-10100F | Intel Core i5-10400F | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| VT-x (Virtualization technology) | Virtualization technology. | ||
| VT-d (Virtualization Technology for Directed I / O) | Virtualization technology for directed I / O. | ||
| AMD-V | AMD-V virtualization technology. | ||
| EPT | Extended page tables. |
| Technology name or instruction | Intel Core i3-10100F | Intel Core i5-10400F | Short description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hyper-Threading | Hyper-threading technology. | ||
| vPro | Intel’s suite of technologies, vPro is a marketing term. |
Benchmarks
Overall performance rating
The rating can be calculated according to the formula, taking into account data such as – test results for all programs, number of cores, threads, overclocking technologies, clock frequency, release year, instructions, socket, temperature data, structure, and other data. The results of the overall rating showed that the Core i5-10400F in most parameters outperforms its rival, the Core i3-10100F. The Core i3-10100F barely scores 10540.44 points in comparison with the competitor.
PassMark CPU Mark
Nearly all of our CPUs have passed the PassMark benchmarks. This is perhaps the most common benchmark tester on the web. The benchmark includes a wide range of tests for a large-scale assessment of the performance of personal computers, in particular the CPU. These include verifying extended instructions, compression, encryption, integer computations, floating point computations, game physics computations, multi-threaded and single-threaded tests. It is also possible to compare the results obtained with other configurations in the database. The Performance Test showed a clear advantage of the Core i5-10400F (13,029 points) over the Core i3-10100F (8750 points). The Core i3-10100F with a score of 8750 points clearly loses in this test.
Cinebench 10 (32-bit) Single-Thread Test
This benchmark for testing processors and video cards is now very outdated. MAXON released, based on Cinema 4D 3D editor. It is possible to check many processor systems. The test is carried out under Windows, Mac OS X. The basic mode of passing the performance tests is a photorealistic rendering of a 3D scene, multilevel reflections, working with lights, global illumination, spatial light sources, and procedural shaders. Single – in its test it uses only one core and one thread for rendering. The ray tracing method is used.
Cinebench 10 (32 bit) Multi-thread test
The Multi Core version is another test method in Cinebench R10, which already uses a multi-threaded and multi-core test method. It is important to note that the possible number of threads in this version is limited to 16.
Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Multi-thread test
A multi-threaded version of the CINEBENCH R11.5 benchmark, which has the ability to load the processor at 100%, including all threads and cores. Differs from older versions, 64 streams are supported here. Testing the Core i5-10400F in the Cinebench R11.5 benchmark gave 14.4 points, which indicates a higher performance of this model. While the Core i3-10100F scores 8.8 points, it is far behind its rival in this test.
Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Single-Thread Test
Good old and functional Cinebench version 11.5 from Maxon. In the checks, as before, the ray tracing method is used, a complex 3D room with a large number of crystalline and translucent and glass spheres is calculated. His tests are still valid today. In this Single-Core variant, tests are performed using one thread and one core. The test score is the “number of frames per second” value. Testing in single-threaded mode, the Core i3-10100F processor in Cinebench 11.5 Single-Core showed that with a score of 2.1 points, it does not go far ahead of the competitor. But the Core i5-10400F itself scored 2.03 points in this test.
Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Multi-thread test
Multi Core version of Cinebench R15 – Boot your system to the fullest, showing what it can do. The benchmark is ideal for modern multi-threaded processors from AMD and Intel, as it is capable of using 256 threads. The test will use all cores and CPU threads in the process of rendering detailed 3D models. The Core i5-10400F, with 1332 points, unconditionally scores more points in the Multi-Core test from Cinebench 15. While its competitor Core i3-10100F lags far behind it with 808.83 points in the test.
Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Single-Thread Test
Cinebench Release 15 is the most relevant benchmark for today from the Finnish company Maxon. The Single Core version uses 1 thread in rendering. A complex 3D scene is rendered with many light sources, highly detailed objects and reflections. Thanks to its use, the entire system is tested: both the CPU and the video cards. For processors, the result of the calculation will be the number of PTS points, and for video cards, the number of frames per second. FPS. The single-threaded test of the Core i5-10400F processor in Cinebench R15 showed a result of 180 points, slightly ahead of the competitor. At 165.94 points in this test, the Core i3-10100F is not far behind.
Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Multi-thread test
This is already a 64-bit multi-thread Geekbench 4 test. It is the device and OS support that makes Geekbench testing the most common now. In Geekbench 4, the 64-bit multi-core processor Core i5-10400F scored 22,957 points, which is significantly higher than the Core i3-10100F. In this test, the Core i3-10100F processor scores an extremely low 15808 points compared to the Core i5-10400F.
Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Single-Thread Test
The latest single-threaded version of Geekbench 4 to date for benchmarking laptops and desktops. For the first time ever, this version of the tester also supports smartphones on iOS and Android. The program, like its earlier versions, runs on systems running Windows, Linux, Mac OS. Single-Core check uses 1 processor thread. The Core i5-10400F scored more points in single-threaded testing from Geekbench 4, with 4978 points, but not far ahead of the competitor. But the Core i3-10100F itself also showed a good mark of 4541 points, slightly giving way to the Core i5-10400F model.
Geekbench 3 (32 bit) Multi-thread test
Multi-Thread version of Geekbench 3 – can provide a powerful “durability” test of your processor and demonstrate the stability of your system.
Geekbench 3 (32 bit) Single Thread Test
The 32-bit version of the benchmark loads no more than one CPU core and one thread. The Geekbench cross-platform tester is often used to evaluate Mac systems, but it works on both Windows and Linux. The main purpose is to check the efficiency of processors.
Geekbench 2
Today there are more recent versions, 5v and 4v. Seriously outdated version of the Geekbench 2 benchmark. On our site there are up to two hundred processor models that have test data in this program.
X264 HD 4.0 Pass 1
In fact, this is a practical test of system performance by transcoding HD files into the H.264 format, the so-called MPEG 4 x264 codec. Ideal test for multi-threaded and multi-core processors. This test is faster than Pass 2 as it renders at a constant rate. The number of frames processed per sec. – result of checking. The processing speed of MPEG 4 video in the Core i5-10400F model is slightly higher than that of the Core i3-10100F, and amounted to 229 frames / s. The Core i3-10100F managed to score 221.74 frames per second, slightly inferior to the first processor.
X264 HD 4.0 Pass 2
This is a slightly different, in comparison, slower test based on video compression. The resulting value is also measured in frames per second. As a result, we get a better quality video file. The same MPEG4 x264 codec is used, but rendering is performed at a variable speed. It is important to understand that this is a real task, and the x264 codec is used by many encoders. For this reason, the test results represent the performance of the platform realistically. When measuring the compression speed of a video file with a Core i5-10400F processor in mpeg4 format, the result was 81 frames / s. Its competitor, the Core i3-10100F, compared to it showed a much lower video encoding rate – 49.17 frames / s.
3DMark06 CPU
Benchmark program for evaluating the performance of the video system, and the CPU. This test is often used by gamers and fans to overclock the system and overclockers. CPUs are tested by 2 methods: game AI performs pathfinding, and another test simulates game physics engine using PhysX. Created using DirectX 9.0 library by Futuremark. The Core i5-10400F performed significantly faster in pathfinding and game physics tests, and scores 16227.05 points. The Core i3-10100F performed worse on this task with 11275.45 points.
3DMark Fire Strike Physics
We can say that almost 2 hundred processors on our Internet resource have data on 3DMark Physics tests. It includes a math test that makes calculations in game physics.
WinRAR 4.0
Everyone knows a file archiver. The compression speed was checked using the RAR algorithm; for this, large amounts of randomly generated data were generated. The resulting speed during compression “Kb / s” is the verification indicator. The checks were carried out under the control of the Windows operating system. Core i5-10400F has a clear advantage in the speed of compression and packaging of WinRAR data, the result of processing files was 9204.91 Kb / s. The Core i3-10100F lagged far behind it, the speed of which did not exceed 6289.59 Kb / s.
TrueCrypt AES
Not really a benchmark, but the results of its work will help you get an estimate of the performance of the entire system. The program has built-in ability to instantly encrypt disk partitions. On our website, the results of the encryption speed in gigabytes per second using the AES algorithm are given. The program can fully function in various operating systems Mac OS X, Linux and Windows. It so happened that support for this program was terminated on May 28, 2014.
Related posts:
Intel Core i5-2500K vs AMD FX-8370: Benchmark | Overclocking | Test (Winner?) 
Asik T17 Bitmain Antminer (T17 vs S17 vs S17 Pro) Mining: Hashrate | Profitability (High) 
CORE I3-12100F Vs RYZEN 7 3700X, Intel has the advantage in price and performance 
AMD A10-6700 vs A10-6800K Processor: Overview| Benchmark | Good for Gaming? 
SATA III vs PCIe NVMe 2022: High-speed ceiling (600 MB / s) SATA III drives Best or Better? 
Surfshark vs. Express VPN: Which One Is Perfect for You
