Core i9-10900F vs Genuine 0000 @ 3.40GHz
Short answer: which is best?
Core i9-10900F is 8.3 % stronger than Genuine 0000 @ 3.40GHz. Core i9-10900F ranks #35 of 104 measured processors at WhatFPS (9,329 CPU score in its best run — 1 rig, 1 verified run). Genuine 0000 @ 3.40GHz ranks #45 of 104 measured processors at WhatFPS (8,614 CPU score in its best run — 1 rig, 1 verified run). Each part is shown at its best run, picked from 2 verified WhatFPS runs — measured, not estimated, not self-reported.
Measured comparison
| Metric | Core i9-10900F | Genuine 0000 @ 3.40GHz |
|---|---|---|
| CPU score, best run (the processor's own performance) | 9,329 | 8,614 |
| Best rig (GAMING — whole PC) | 7,406 | 6,223 |
| Integer (MT) | 8.4 Gop/s | 6.8 Gop/s |
| Single-thread (1T) | 0.55 Gop/s | 0.59 Gop/s |
| Draw calls/s (DX11) | 4,374,625 | 8,548,473 |
| Cores / threads | 10 / 20 | 8 / 16 |
| L3 cache | 20 MB | 16 MB |
What the numbers mean
The headline score is the part's best measured run, and the measurements under it come from that same run. It shows what the part has been proven to do — not what an average rig gets out of it. The CPU score is the processor's own performance — that is what we rank on. GAMING is the whole rig's score in the best PC we measured the processor in, and leans heavily on the graphics card. A strong processor in a weak PC gets a low GAMING score without being worse. We show both and never mix them.
All numbers come from our benchmark suite: four hand-built 3D scenes written directly against the graphics APIs in Rust, the same load on every PC. The methodology is open at https://whatfps.com/metodik
All measurements for Core i9-10900F · All measurements for Genuine 0000 @ 3.40GHz