Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 6400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 6400

Report a correction
More l3 cache 6 MB vs 3 MB 2x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Better PassMark score 6,727 vs 5,478 Around 25% better PassMark score
Higher Maximum operating temperature 71 °C vs 65 °C Around 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
Front view of Intel Core i3 6100

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 6100

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 3.7 GHz vs 2.7 GHz More than 35% higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 1.84 pt/$ vs 0.98 pt/$ Around 90% better performance per dollar
Better turbo clock speed 1,050 MHz vs 950 MHz More than 10% better turbo clock speed
Lower typical power consumption 41.44W vs 52.81W More than 20% lower typical power consumption
Better PassMark (Single core) score 2,106 vs 1,832 Around 15% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.25 GHz vs 3.67 GHz More than 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better performance per watt 4.51 pt/W vs 2.82 pt/W More than 60% better performance per watt
Lower annual home energy cost 12.29 $/year vs 15.66 $/year More than 20% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 44.68 $/year vs 56.94 $/year More than 20% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 6400 vs i3 6100

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i5 6400  vs
i3 6100 
Clock speed 2.7 GHz 3.7 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core
Is unlocked No No


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
Supplemental SSE3
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 65W 51W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year 12.29 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year 44.68 $/year
Performance per watt 2.82 pt/W 4.51 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 41.44W


Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Transfer rate 8,000 MT/s 8,000 MT/s


Core i5 6400  vs
i3 6100 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L3 cache 6 MB 3 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 14 nm 14 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 71°C Unknown - 65°C


Overclocked clock speed 3.67 GHz 4.25 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.34 GHz 4.39 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.67 GHz 4.25 GHz

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics 530 Intel® HD Graphics 530
Number of displays supported 3 3
GPU clock speed 350 MHz 350 MHz
Turbo clock speed 950 MHz 1,050 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 12,800 MB/s
Maximum memory size 65,536 MB 65,536 MB
Intel Core i5 6400
Report a correction
Intel Core i3 6100
Report a correction


Showing 19 comments.
"all 4 cores would constantly be working". No, sorry. The 4 cores will only work if there are more than 4 threads. Which is kinda always. BUT most of the time the cores will be close to idle. But if you do have a game (or other application) that only has ONE thread that actually uses 100 % of a core, it is basically single-thread and the i3 will have a better performance due to its higher clock frequency.
"The extra Ghz you can get in frequency over the i5 blows it out of the water for most scenarios". Sorry, but no. Only on single-thread scenarios. Which are none. Hiperthreading (HT) is Intel's marketspeak for TLP (thread-level paralelism), which gives you roughly 30 % more performance than a single processor switching threads. The i5 has 4 cores, at a lower frequency, but 4 cores. So it depends entirely on whether you need multi-core performance or not. Doing a back-of-the-envelop calculation, you could say that the relative number of the i3 are: i3=2 cores * 1.3 (HT) = 2.6*1.37 (3.7 GHz/2.7 GHz) = 3.56 i5 =4 cores. Newegg's price for a i3: 119. Dividing 119 by 3.56, we get 33 (rounded). Lets call this price-performance ratio. Dois the same for the i5 (again Newegg), we get 182/4 = 45 (rounded). So yeah, from a cost-performance perspective, you do get more with the i3. But the i5 WILL give you more performance.
What do I get i3 6100 or i5 6400? ( I'm thinking about the i3 )
Real world performance benchmark (GTA5 included). 6400 beat 6100.
Hi guys..I got absolutly NO knowledge about these typo things...I have only one question If a scenario ever occurs that these 2 are going for the SAME price, which one would you buy? My apps include having 3 monitors for basic websurfing,youtube and the odd "counterstrike source" super ultra new gaming...I would assume in this case I should go for the high GHz processor regardless of # of cores?
The thing is: Intel Core i3 6100 have 3.7 GHz, but the Intel Core i5 6400 have 2.7 GHz, but if you want to i5 win, try looking for other generations
Here's some real world benchmarks in case anybody is wondering. The i3 is a much better value, but with most components there's a diminishing return on performance per dollar once you get to the mid range and up.
I'm curious as to whether you think the 6300 is a worthwhile buy compared to the 6100?
"regardless of the number of threads available to work on, all 4 cores would constantly be working". If a program only has 2 threads, the cpu can not "work on 4 cores constantly". it just can't. A thread needs to be executed sequentially.
well i3 for gaming is good enought maybe better because smaller and less heat because of fewer sillicon (cores) you see that also in gpu`s
but cpuboss not hardware related therefore the have the benchmark scores that give pretty good compare intel, Please note that the above 'benchmarks' are all just theoretical - the results were calculated based on the card's specifications, and real-world performance may (and probably will) vary at least a bit.
are you try explain that the i7 should have a higher cpuboss score well only 5% of consumers need a i7 cpu in fact nobody really need a i7 i think with opencl ect on the gpu these days and then you have hostside rendered graphics so cpu`s will dissapear very soon for the enduser then you really need a small thin client with good network specs ,btw i think the pentium g3258K(aniversary edition)70 dolaar chip has same performance if overclocked as intel prior flagchip cpu i7 4790K on stock speed
With Skylake, the single thread to clock speed scenario wouldn't work. Skylake cpus have inverse hyperthreading so regardless of the number of threads available to work on, all 4 cores would constantly be working (resulting in the i5 always beating out the i3 in any single thread task). Just take a look at the benchmarks. Also, multicore performance is definitely better than an i3 so that again goes to say why an i5 is better.
The i5 wouldn't actually win, sorry Fal'Cie. Maybe if the i5 had two threads per cores instead of one, it would. But, in actuality, it having 4 cores really doesn't mean much over have 2 when they both only have 4 threads. The extra Ghz you can get in frequency over the i5 blows it out of the water for most scenarios. That paired with the hyperthreading makes the i3 the clear winner. The i5 might be better if you're running 20 webpages, watching YouTube, and running 5 different chat programs, but even then it wouldn't be ahead by much. For any gaming performance, the i3 will be the victor. Also, the TDP is important for people determining the PSU they'll need for their build/upgrade. One thing with the Skylakes is that if you overclock them, you no longer have the turbo boost, so if you managed to overclock i5 to 3.7Ghz(which in reality isn't that common, only a few lucky chip owners will actually be able to get over 3.2-3.3), it still wouldn't beat the i3 without overclock. This explanation applies to you too, Miguel. The 4 cores don't mean much when they are both operating on the same thread count. At least Intel isn't like AMD and calling their dual-core chips quad-cores, otherwise everyone would buy these up like hotcakes without ever learning what they are talking about.
Check the actual benchmarks. The i5 wins in games most of the time, but still sometimes even loses because of slower clock speed(for example in Arma III, Starcraft II, HTML5, Flash, IrfanView, even Word). The point i'm trying to make is not that the cheapest Skylake i5 is bad, it's that the cheapest Skylake i3 is pretty damn amazing and it's a great budget gaming cpu!
There is a lot of jacked up comparisons on here, look at the comparison on here between the i3 4170 and i7 5960x...
if you do some research the i3 has hyperthreading this will help on any game that use 4 cores, the i3 can also be overclocked to 4.7Ghz, it's cheaper, way cheaper, and there is a lot of people that will buy this one for their League of Legends main machine, it will run Ultra 1080 at 40ºC using only the HD530, this is awesome, now if you match this lil'monster with a gtx 970 or r9 380 you will get a very strong gaming PC. Now think of this, you would like to spend almost $80 more on that i5 to get just 5~10 fps difference?... Btw i get a new one for just $80 bucks =D.
The i5 would actually win. Its just that this website has a really linear way to rate things, and the single core benchmark favoured the i3 making it win. In practice though, the i5 would definitely win. Also side note, the website heavily values power consumption and TDP, making it affect the score more than some would prefer.
Why does the i3 win? I really dont understand. I might be being dumb here or way out of my knowledge zone but lets look at the facts: Features: Its the same according to your page. Power Consumption: Noone gives a damn about this lets be honest. Bus: Its the same according to your page. Memory controller: Everything is the same except for the maximum bandwith , ECC support(which i personally wouldnt mind not having) , and the memory speed 1600 vs 1333. Integrated graphics: Why even compare this? Does anyone actually play with an integrated graphics card these days? Overclocking: This is where it gets interesting, i've checked a number of other websites claiming that the 6400 can go up to 4.4 which is mind boggling really, if thats true, with 4 cores the i3 gets imediatly blown away.But! The 4.4ghz overclock is in fact true the 3.23 overclock that you have here on the website isnt(i checked intels website), it instead goes up to 3.3ghz overclock(Turbo speed not the proper overclock). Details: It has basically the same thing but the 6.4k has 6 mb l3 cache, this may or may not mean much but still its a + for the 6400. Sumary: Even doe the i3 has 3.7 ghz i feel having 4 cores that can overclock up to 3.3ghz is better as the i3 only has 2. The Passmark test: I feel like if the i3 didnt do better here there would be no point in even comparing both. It has 2 cores so pls. Conclusion: The 6400 is better in almost all aspects and even doe its inegrated graphics card and its single core performance maybe fallin off short it wins in some lenght as noone that is going to play games(ofc) actually buys this kinda processors expecting to play on their integrated graphics card. Thats all please get back to me and if im wrong explain thoroughly why i am :)
comments powered by Disqus