Key Differences
In short — Core i5-10400F 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 Core i5-10400F is 2705 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 76% cheaper than Core i5-10400F - CA$36.89 vs CA$153.8
- Up to 73% better value when playing Assassin's Creed Odyssey than Core i5-10400F - CA$0.32 vs CA$1.17 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i5-10400F - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-10400F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i5-10400F
- Performs up to 15% better in Assassin's Creed Odyssey than Celeron G1620 - 132 vs 115 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 12 vs 2 threads
Assassin's Creed Odyssey
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
115
87%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.32/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$36.89
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$36.89 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 330 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
132
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$1.17/FPS
27%
Price, CA$
CA$153.8
23%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$153.8 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 331 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | Intel Core i5-10400F |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i5 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 6 |
2 | Threads | 12 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |