Key Differences
In short — Core i3-4130 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 i3-4130 is 272 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Core i3-4130
- Performs up to 4% better in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II than Celeron G1620 - 198 vs 190 FPS
- Consumes up to 2% less energy than Intel Celeron G1620 - 54 vs 55 Watts
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 57% cheaper than Core i3-4130 - CA$36.89 vs CA$84.99
- Up to 56% better value when playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II than Core i3-4130 - CA$0.19 vs CA$0.43 per FPS
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2013
FPS
198
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.43/FPS
44%
Price, CA$
CA$84.99
43%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$84.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 168 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
190
95%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.19/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$36.89
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$36.89 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 167 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2013
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i3-4130 | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
---|---|---|
Sep 1st, 2013 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Core i3 | Collection | Celeron |
Haswell | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 1150 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
3.4 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
54 W | TDP | 55 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
34.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
Intel HD 4400 | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
No | Overclockable | No |