Intel Core i3 vs. Core i5 vs. Core i7 vs. Core i9

Do you demand to purchase a Core i9 for gaming, and is a Core i3 sufficient for general desktop work? How about upgrading to a Core i5 if it's only $l more, and how much faster is that going to be? Generally speaking, our CPU reviews provide more than than plenty information to answer those questions and then some. In add-on, TechSpot'south piece of cake to follow Best CPUs guide is regularly updated, and then you simply get what you need to know to brand an informed buying conclusion.

With that said, this review will serve as a cracking reference for those wanting to compare Intel Cadre i3, i5, i7 and i9 processors directly, and what you get on each jump. It's rare for us to feature all these processors in a single review since they aim at different market segments and budgets. For instance, when reviewing the Core i3-10100, none of the Core i7 or i9 processors were included, as $400+ parts aren't usually relevant when reviewing an entry-level $100 CPU, and then we opt to remove them in an attempt to declutter the graphs.

Having recently provided a similar overview for AMD's 3rd-gen Ryzen range, information technology was but logical we did the same for Intel, because the 10th-gen CPUs have simply been out for a few months.

Intel Core Lineup Overview

Intel lists 17 individual 'standard power' 10th-gen Core desktop processors, though in reality there's just a scattering of unique models. For instance, there are 2 distinct Core i9 models, the 10900 and the 10900K, simply each has an alternating version without the integrated graphics -- dubbed the 10900F and 10900KF. But let's start from the bottom and work our way up...

The 10th-gen Core i3 range is quite interesting, all models feature 4 cores and 8 threads thank you to Hyper-Threading back up. The base i3-10100 model operates at a base frequency of 3.six GHz with a max turbo of 4.3 GHz and packs a 6 MB L3 cache. So there's the Core i3-10300 which gets a 100 MHz frequency bump plus a larger 8 MB L3 cache. Finally, the near powerful Cadre i3 model available right now is the 10320, which runs at even higher clock speeds, boosting the base to 3.viii GHz and the max turbo to 4.6 GHz. To correspond the Cadre i3 range today we'll be using the Core i3-10100.

	Core i3-10100	Core i3-10300	Core i3-10320
List Cost	$122	$143	$154
Electric current Retail	$130	$158	$172
Cores / Threads	four /8
Base of operations Frequency	3.6 GHz	iii.seven GHz	iii.8 GHz
Max Turbo	4.3 GHz	4.4 GHz	iv.6 GHz
L3 Cache	half-dozen MB	8 MB
iGPU Model	UHD Graphics 630
TDP	65 watt

The 10th-gen Cadre i5 serial consists of the 10400, 10400F, 10500, 10600, 10600K and the 10600KF as shown in the tabular array below. The six models feature half-dozen cores, 12 threads and a 12MB L3 cache. The non-1000 models are rated with a 65-watt TDP while the unlocked Thou SKUs pack a 125-watt TDP.

The difference between the 10400, 10500 and 10600 is 200 to 300 MHz, that's it, and since they're locked parts y'all won't be able to change that. The 10600K and its F variant are fully unlocked, provided you're using a Z-series motherboard, they can exist overclocked.

	Cadre i5 10400	Core i5 10400F	Core i5 10500	Cadre i5 10600	Cadre i5 10600K	Core i5 10600KF
Listing Price	$182	$157	$192	$213	$262	$237
Current Retail	$182	$170	$233	$288	$306	N/A
Cores / Threads	6 / 12
Base of operations Frequency	two.9 GHz		3.1 GHz	three.3 GHz	4.ane GHz
Max Turbo	four.3 GHz		iv.five GHz	4.eight GHz
L3 Cache	12 MB
iGPU	UHD Graphics 630	N/A	UHD Graphics 630	UHD Graphics 630	UHD Graphics 630	N/A
TDP	65 watt				125 watt

The Core i7 range is somewhat simplified, there are two distinct 8-core/xvi-thread models. The Cadre i7-10700 is the locked part, it runs at a 2.9 GHz base of operations clock with a max turbo of four.viii GHz, whereas the 10700K is unlocked and out of the box runs at three.eight GHz for the base and 5.1 GHz for the boost. The locked model receives a 65-watt TDP rating and the unlocked role a 125-watt TDP. Both characteristic a sixteen MB L3 cache.

	Core i7-10700	Core i7-10700F	Cadre i7-10700K	Core i7-10700KF
List Cost	$323	$298	$374	$349
Current Retail	$329	Northward/A	$410	Due north/A
Cores / Threads	8 / sixteen
Base of operations Frequency	2.nine GHz		3.8 GHz
Max Turbo	4.eight GHz		five.one GHz
L3 Cache	16 MB
iGPU	UHD Graphics 630	N/A	UHD Graphics 630	Northward/A
TDP	65 watt		125 watt

Finally, nosotros take the mighty Core i9 range offer 10 cores/20 threads and a xx MB L3 cache. At that place are four models, two of which are F variants. The 10900 is the base model and as a 65-watt part it features a rather depression 2.8 GHz base frequency with a 5.i GHz turbo. And so in that location's the unlocked 10900K that cheers to a higher 125 watt TDP rating, it clocks no lower than 3.7 GHz with a max turbo boost of 5.2 GHz.

	Cadre i9-10900	Core i9-10900F	Core i9-10900K	Core i9-10900KF
List Price	$439	$422	$488	$472
Electric current Retail	$480	N/A	$530	N/A
Cores / Threads	10 / 20
Base of operations Frequency	2.8 GHz		3.vii GHz
Max Turbo	5.1 GHz		5.2 GHz
L3 Enshroud	twenty MB
iGPU	UHD Graphics 630	North/A	UHD Graphics 630	North/A
TDP	65 watt		125 watt

Unfortunately, right now many of these 10th-gen Cadre processors are either out of stock or are selling well over the MSRP. It's a rough time for supply and on summit of that Intel's been suffering 14nm shortages for what seems like years now. Then getting your hands on the Core i9-10900K right now is nearly incommunicable and good luck getting one for anywhere near $500.

For this overview, we'll by and large be focusing on the 125 watt parts in the Core i5, Core i7 and Core i9 range, though we've too been able to secure the 65 watt Core i5-10400 and Cadre i3-10100.

For testing we're using our standard memory configuration, fully populating an Asus ROG Maximus XII Farthermost wit iv 8GB G.Skill FlareX CL14 modules for a 32GB capacity. As usual we're as well relying on an RTX 2080 Ti to alleviate potential GPU bottlenecks, allowing united states to have a amend wait at the actual CPU functioning.

Benchmarks

Starting with Cinebench R20 we detect that the 10400 is just shy of 50% faster than the 10100, which makes sense given the i5 processor packs fifty% more cores and clock speeds are virtually the aforementioned. And so we meet a thirteen% jump from the 10400 to the 10600K and this difference is a upshot of the operating clock speed, and of course, given that the K SKU office is unlocked, that margin can be increased farther by overclocking.

And then nosotros see an virtually 40% increment when going from the 10600K to the 10700K and of course that's largely due to a 33% increase in cadre count, with the remainder clock speed related as the i7 processor clocks around 6% higher. Finally we see another large jump in functioning with the 10900K, though this time but a ~29% increase equally the cadre count has only been additional by 25% and clock speeds are much the same.

Every bit for single cadre operation the 10900K produced the highest score here, chirapsia the 10700K by a 7% margin and the 10600K by a xiv% margin while the 10100 and 10400 were comparable.

Past far the most significant functioning gains seen in the 7-Zip file manager pinch test are seen when moving from the 4-core Core i3-10100 to the 6-core 10400, which makes sense given this is the most pregnant increase in relative core count. The 10400 was 55% faster than the 10100, while the 10600K was a further 8% faster.

Then we see a xxx% boost from the 10600K to the 10700K which isn't insignificant, but you could certainly argue that the 16% increment seen when going from the 10700K to the 10900K is, at the very least these results would make information technology difficult to justify the 30% increment in MSRP.

Decompression operation is much improved as here nosotros're able to better utilize Hyper-Threading and every bit a consequence the 10900K is now 36% faster than the 10700K, and that makes it much easier to justify the thirty% price premium for the 10-core processor.

For any serious rendering-type workloads y'all'll desire to avert the Core i3 range when possible. Spending a bit more on the Cadre i5-10400, for example, will net you lot around 50% more performance. Granted it likewise costs ~fifty% more though that won't be the example in one case you factor in the unabridged toll of the machine. In reality, we're talking about $50 and that makes the 10400 a much ameliorate purchase if you programme to do some rendering.

Again we can see that the difference between the 10400 and 10600K is very small, at least out of the box. Then if you're going to purchase the 10600K, you want to overclock it, otherwise you might equally well save the $lxx-$80 and just become the locked 10400. Ideally, for this kind of workload you'll want something like the 10700K or 10900K, if yous're exclusively shopping Intel, of course. The 10700K offered a 37% operation boost over the 10600K while the 10900K was a further 33% faster.

Lawmaking compilation performance is similar to what was found in the Blender examination. We're looking at a fifty% performance uplift when going from the 10100 to the 10400. From the 10600K to the 10700K y'all're again looking at a 30% functioning increase and then some other thirty% to the 10900K.

The margins are less predictable for video production piece of work. Here the Cadre i3-10100 fairs quite well, at to the lowest degree for the editing portion of the job. The 10400 was simply 15% faster, while the 10600K was merely a few per centum faster than the locked i5 model. Interestingly, we do see a reasonable boost in performance to the 10700K, but then simply a very modest footstep up to the 10900K, suggesting that 8 cores/16 threads is the sweetness spot for this application.

Scaling is more consequent in Adobe Premiere Pro, where we see fairly consistent performance gains equally the cadre count increases. For case, we run across a 25% increase when going from the 10100 to the 10400, and a xvi% increase from the 10700K to the 10900K.

Adobe Photoshop mostly relies on single core performance, and for that same reason we didn't expect to see a 47% operation increase from the Core i3-10100 to the Core i9-10900K. The i9 processor does enjoy a clock speed advantage every bit well as a much larger L3 cache.

The margins seen in Later Effects are more in line with our Photoshop expectations. The 10900K is 35% faster than the 10100, though the 10700K and 10600K are merely xx% faster. It's interesting to run into the 10600K and 10700K producing the same score, while the 10900K is around thirteen% faster, this is conspicuously a event of college sustained frequencies.

Power Consumption

The Core i9-10900K is a beast, pushing total arrangement consumption to 300 watts, a seventy watt increase from the 10700K. Meanwhile the 10700K pushed organization consumption just 30 watts higher than the 10600K.

Gaming Operation

Time for a look at gaming performance and first up we have Battleground 5 at 1080p with the ultra quality preset using an RTX 2080 Ti. The 10900K and 10700K are both GPU limited and equally a result they delivered the same boilerplate and 1% low functioning. The 10600K also managed to produce the same average frame rate but slipped away from the one% depression, trailing past an 8% margin.

We see a further 6% reject in functioning with the 10400 and then a rather large 22% drib off with the 10100. However, past increasing the resolution to 1440p for a more realistic test scenario, we find very little difference in performance betwixt the 10400, 10600K, 10700K and 10900K. In fact, the average frame rates are virtually identical while the 10900K is at most ten% faster than the 10400 when comparing the ane% depression performance.

All that said, the Core i3-10100 does still trail by a noticeable margin and while the functioning is far from poor, you volition at times be able to discover the deviation between the 10100 and 10400.

Far Cry New Dawn is very sensitive to clock frequency and cache functioning, then we see a reasonably big performance uplift when moving from the 10100 to the 10400. The i5 processor was up to 25% faster. Of grade, the jump from the 10400 to the 10600K is much smaller and the 8% increase is in line with the clock frequency difference.

And so we're looking at a farther 9% boost when stepping up to the 10700K and the i7 role basically matched the 10900K.

Every bit we've seen many times in the by, increasing the resolution to 1440p can really increase CPU load and equally a result processors that were already struggling, like the Cadre i3-10100, fall further backside the competition. Hither the 10400 went from 25% faster at 1080p to 31% faster at 1440p.

Next we accept the Gears Tactics results and here we're looking at identical performance using either the 10600K, 10700K or 10900K. It's only the Core i3-10100 that struggles, trailing the 10400 by upwards to a 20% margin.

Increasing the resolution to 1440p sees that margin reduced drastically, down to just seven% as the game becomes primarily GPU limited.

For titles similar Ghost Recon Breakpoint that aren't particularly CPU sensitive, y'all won't observe a big difference betwixt the Core i3-10100 and Core i9-10900K. This is particularly true when testing under more realistic conditions such every bit 1440p. Here the 10900K was upward to seven% faster than the 10100 and on average rendered simply 3 frames more per second. And so for games that don't require more than four cores and aren't sensitive to CPU performance, these are the kind of margins yous can expect to find betwixt these 10th-gen Core processors.

In Rainbow 6 Siege the 10700K and 10900K are seen delivering most identical performance at 1080p. The 10600K is very close, though we practice see a 12% reduction in 1% low performance. As expected the 10600K and 10400 are very similar so we see a farther 17% reduction with the Core i3-10100.

All the same, once more we detect when increasing the resolution to 1440p, the added strain on the GPU is enough to almost completely eliminate the fps margins. Here the Core i5, i7 and i9 processors all evangelize virtually the aforementioned level of operation, while the i3-10100 is upwardly to 13% slower when comparison the 1% low results.

Certainly one of the most CPU demanding games that we currently test with is Shadow of the Tomb Raider and for this one you ideally want a six-cadre/12-thread processor. The Core i5 models aren't far behind the viii and 10-core i7 and i9 parts whereas the quad-cadre Core i3-10100 is up to 39% slower.

Increasing the resolution to 1440p reduces the margins between the i5, i7 and i9 processors drastically. Now the 10900K is only 12% faster than the Core i5-10400 when comparing the i% low performance. Nonetheless, when compared to the Core i3-10100, it'due south up to 33% faster and even the 10400 is xix% faster when comparing ane% low performance. So not an ideal game for those using quad-cadre processors and we'll surely see more of this moving forward.

The last game in our criterion circular is Red Expressionless Redemption two and hither nosotros take another title that doesn't play particularly well with quad-core processors, even those with SMT support. Although we run into almost identical operation between the various i5, i7 and i9 processors, the Core i3-10100 was up to 27% slower.

Increasing the resolution to 1440p did drastically reduce that margin and now the Core i3-10100 was only 14% slower than the 10900K and 9% slower than the 10400, when using an RTX 2080 Ti.

What We Learned

For budget gaming PCs, or general computing needs, the Core i3-10100 works well plenty. For not a great bargain more than though, nosotros do feel the Core i5-10400 is a much amend investment. The Core i3-10300 and 10320 might fare a piffling better cheers to the larger L3 cache capacity and the slightly college clock frequencies, but considering both are more expensive, information technology makes even more sense to just go the Core i5 chip.

If you lot tin observe it and plan on using a discrete graphics carte, the Cadre i5-10400F is the way to become. This role might even exist improve value than the Ryzen v 3600, which is saying something. At around $160, it'south a mighty tempting alternative so keep that in mind.

Across that, the Core i5-10500 and 10600 certainly won't be worth the toll premium, at to the lowest degree not at the current asking prices. Even the 10600K is a stretch at a petty over $300, though if yous program to overclock then it tin can make sense for loftier refresh rate gaming.

The Cadre i7-10700K is besides a little overpriced correct now and at $410 you lot really have to exist able to put those 8 cores to work. The Core i9-10900K is a beast of a processor, but at $530 it's ~$100 more than AMD'south 12-core/24-thread Ryzen ix 3900X, and that's a large problem for Intel. Though perchance an even bigger problem is its lack of availability.