Key Differences
In short — Core i5-11600K outperforms the cheaper Core i5-10400F on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Core i5-10400F is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-11600K is 320 days newer than the cheaper Core i5-10400F.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-10400F
- Up to 43% cheaper than Core i5-11600K - $112.53 vs $198.9
- Up to 38% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i5-11600K - $0.6 vs $0.97 per FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than Intel Core i5-11600K - 65 vs 125 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11600K
- Performs up to 9% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i5-10400F - 204 vs 188 FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-10400F doesn't have integrated graphics
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
188
92.15686274509804%
Value, $/FPS
$0.6/FPS
100%
Price, $
$112.53
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $112.53 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 348547 minutes ago
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
204
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.97/FPS
61.855670103092784%
Price, $
$198.9
56%
FPS Winner
Buy for $198.9 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 348546 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Single-Core
1438
65.78225068618482%
Multi-Core
5751
67.0357850565334%
Intel Core i5-10400F | vs | Intel Core i5-11600K |
---|---|---|
Apr 30th, 2020 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2021 |
Core i5 | Collection | Core i5 |
Comet Lake | Codename | Rocket Lake |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 6 |
12 | Threads | 12 |
2.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
4.3 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.9 GHz |
65 W | TDP | 125 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
29.0x | Multiplier | 39.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 750 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |