Buy on Amazon
$99.9
In Stock
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900F outperforms the cheaper Core i7-6700T on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Core i7-6700T is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-10900F is 1703 days newer than the cheaper Core i7-6700T.
Advantages of Intel Core i7-6700T
- Up to 59% cheaper than Core i9-10900F - $99.9 vs $244.77
- Up to 46% better value when playing Immortals of Aveum than Core i9-10900F - $2.22 vs $4.08 per FPS
- Consumes up to 46% less energy than Intel Core i9-10900F - 35 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-10900F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 33% better in Immortals of Aveum than Core i7-6700T - 60 vs 45 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i7-6700T - 20 vs 8 threads
Immortals of Aveum
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Intel Core i7-6700T 2.8GHz Tray CPU
Buy for $99.9 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 348551 minutes ago
Core i9-10900F
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
60
100%
Value, $/FPS
$4.08/FPS
54.41176470588236%
Price, $
$244.77
40%
FPS Winner
Intel Core i9-10900F Desktop Processor 10 Cores up to 5.2 GHz Without Processor Graphics LGA 1200 (Intel 400 Series chipset) 65W
Buy for $244.77 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 348551 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Core i7-6700T
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
Core i9-10900F
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Core i7-6700T
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
Single-Core
1183
70.58472553699285%
Multi-Core
3566
42.32138618561595%
Intel Core i7-6700T | vs | Intel Core i9-10900F |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 1st, 2015 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
| Core i7 | Collection | Core i9 |
| Skylake | Codename | Comet Lake |
| Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 4 | Cores | 10 |
| 8 | Threads | 20 |
| 2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
| 3.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
35 W | TDP | 65 W |
| 14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 28.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
HD Graphics 530 | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
Similar CPU Comparisons
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
