Key Differences
In short — Core i5-9400 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 i5-9400 is 2146 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 82% cheaper than Core i5-9400 - CA$36.89 vs CA$200.0
- Up to 81% better value when playing Death Stranding than Core i5-9400 - CA$0.17 vs CA$0.89 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i5-9400 - 55 vs 65 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i5-9400
- Performs up to 6% better in Death Stranding than Celeron G1620 - 225 vs 213 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 6 vs 2 threads
Death Stranding
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
213
94%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.17/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$36.89
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$36.89 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 89 minutes ago
Desktop • Oct 19th, 2018
FPS
225
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.89/FPS
19%
Price, CA$
CA$200
18%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$200 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 90 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Oct 19th, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | Intel Core i5-9400 |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 19th, 2018 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i5 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Coffee Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 6 |
2 | Threads | 6 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.1 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | UHD 630 |
No | Overclockable | No |