i3-9100F vs i5-4400E

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i5-4400E
2013
2 cores / 4 threads, 37 Watt
2.05
Core i3-9100F
2019
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
4.24
+107%

Core i3-9100F outperforms Core i5-4400E by a whopping 107% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i5-4400E and Core i3-9100F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking18971372
Place by popularitynot in top-10040
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data9.87
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Core i5Intel Core i3
Power efficiency5.246.17
Architecture codenameHaswell (2013−2015)Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019)
Release date1 October 2013 (11 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$266$122

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core i5-4400E and Core i3-9100F 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 cores2 (Dual-core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed2.7 GHz3.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz4.2 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 3.0
Bus rateno data4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplierno data36
L1 cache128 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB256K (per core)
L3 cache3 MB6 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm14 nm
Die size130 mm2126 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors960 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Core i5-4400E and Core i3-9100F 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 configurationno data1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCBGA1364FCLGA1151
Power consumption (TDP)37 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-4400E and Core i3-9100F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+

Security technologies

Core i5-4400E and Core i3-9100F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
MPX-+
Identity Protection-+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® ME
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-4400E and Core i3-9100F are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-4400E and Core i3-9100F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory sizeno data64 GB
Max memory channelsno data2
Maximum memory bandwidthno data38.397 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics 4600-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-4400E and Core i3-9100F.

PCIe versionno data3.0
PCI Express lanesno data16

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.

i5-4400E 2.05
i3-9100F 4.24
+107%

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.

i5-4400E 3251
i3-9100F 6733
+107%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.05 4.24
Recency 1 October 2013 23 April 2019
Physical cores 2 4
Chip lithography 22 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 37 Watt 65 Watt

i5-4400E has 75.7% lower power consumption.

i3-9100F, on the other hand, has a 106.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 100% more physical cores, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.

The Core i3-9100F is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-4400E in performance tests.

Be aware that Core i5-4400E is a notebook processor while Core i3-9100F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-4400E and Core i3-9100F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i5-4400E
Core i5-4400E
Intel Core i3-9100F
Core i3-9100F

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4 21 vote

Rate Core i5-4400E on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 7014 votes

Rate Core i3-9100F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i5-4400E or Core i3-9100F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.