Core i5-13400F vs Core i3-3220
Aggregated performance score
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 1017% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i3-3220 and Core i5-13400F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2063 | 366 |
| Place by popularity | 58 | 39 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.22 | 12.46 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i3 (Desktop) | no data |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Raptor Lake-S |
| Release date | 3 September 2012 (11 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $117 | $196 |
| Current price | $59 (0.5x MSRP) | $1066 (5.4x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
i5-13400F has 5564% better value for money than i3-3220.
Detailed specifications
Core i3-3220 and Core i5-13400F basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 4.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 3 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 94 mm2 | 257 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 65 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 65 °C | 72 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core i3-3220 and Core i5-13400F compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-3220 and Core i5-13400F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| My WiFi | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| TSX | no data | + |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | Launched |
Security technologies
Core i3-3220 and Core i5-13400F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | - | + |
| Identity Protection | + | no data |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-3220 and Core i5-13400F are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-3220 and Core i5-13400F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics 2500 | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.05 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i3-3220 and Core i5-13400F integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-3220 and Core i5-13400F.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 1017% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 1016% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 336% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 892% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 88% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 401% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 248% in 3DMark06 CPU.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
Core i3-3220 outperforms Core i5-13400F by 348% in wPrime 32.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 730% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 122% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.
TrueCrypt AES
TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 3713% in TrueCrypt AES.
WinRAR 4.0
WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 219% in WinRAR 4.0.
x264 encoding pass 1
x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 219% in x264 encoding pass 1.
x264 encoding pass 2
x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Core i5-13400F outperforms Core i3-3220 by 627% in x264 encoding pass 2.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.46 | 16.31 |
| Recency | 3 September 2012 | 4 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 10 |
| Threads | 4 | 16 |
| Cost | $117 | $196 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 65 Watt |
The Core i5-13400F is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-3220 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-3220 and Core i5-13400F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
