Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 5 2600X outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G1620 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Ryzen 5 2600X is 1963 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 76% cheaper than Ryzen 5 2600X - CA$36.89 vs CA$153.99
- Up to 73% better value when playing Assassin's Creed Odyssey than Ryzen 5 2600X - CA$0.32 vs CA$1.19 per FPS
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than AMD Ryzen 5 2600X - 55 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen 5 2600X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 2600X
- Performs up to 12% better in Assassin's Creed Odyssey than Celeron G1620 - 129 vs 115 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 12 vs 2 threads
Assassin's Creed Odyssey
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
115
89%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.32/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$36.89
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$36.89 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 83 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 19th, 2018
FPS
129
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$1.19/FPS
26%
Price, CA$
CA$153.99
23%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$153.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 84 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 19th, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | AMD Ryzen 5 2600X |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 19th, 2018 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen 5 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Pinnacle Ridge |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 6 |
2 | Threads | 12 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 95 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 12 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |