Key Differences
In short — Core i5-11600K outperforms the cheaper Core i3-4150 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Core i3-4150 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-11600K is 2511 days newer than the cheaper Core i3-4150.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11600K
- Performs up to 13% better in Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i3-4150 - 204 vs 180 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i3-4150 - 12 vs 4 threads
Advantages of Intel Core i3-4150
- Up to 76% cheaper than Core i5-11600K - $48.0 vs $198.9
- Up to 72% better value when playing Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 than Core i5-11600K - $0.27 vs $0.97 per FPS
- Consumes up to 57% less energy than Intel Core i5-11600K - 54 vs 125 Watts
Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
204
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.97/FPS
27.835051546391753%
Price, $
$198.9
24%
FPS Winner
Buy for $198.9 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 348907 minutes ago
Desktop • May 1st, 2014
FPS
180
88.23529411764706%
Value, $/FPS
$0.27/FPS
100%
Price, $
$48
100%
Value Winner
Buy for $48 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 348908 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Desktop • May 1st, 2014
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • May 1st, 2014
Single-Core
1041
47.62122598353156%
Multi-Core
2047
23.86058981233244%
Intel Core i5-11600K | vs | Intel Core i3-4150 |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | May 1st, 2014 |
Core i5 | Collection | Core i3 |
Rocket Lake | Codename | Haswell |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1150 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 2 |
12 | Threads | 4 |
3.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
4.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
125 W | TDP | 54 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
39.0x | Multiplier | 25.0x |
UHD Graphics 750 | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4400 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |