Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900F 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 i9-10900F is 2705 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 90% cheaper than Core i9-10900F - CA$36.89 vs CA$388.0
- Up to 89% better value when playing The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt than Core i9-10900F - CA$0.24 vs CA$2.27 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i9-10900F - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-10900F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 11% better in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt than Celeron G1620 - 171 vs 154 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 20 vs 2 threads
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra+
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
154
90%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.24/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$36.89
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$36.89 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 101 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
171
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$2.27/FPS
10%
Price, CA$
CA$388
9%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$388 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 101 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra+
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | Intel Core i9-10900F |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i9 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 10 |
2 | Threads | 20 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |