Key Differences
In short — Core i3-9100F 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 i3-9100F is 2332 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Core i3-9100F
- Performs up to 10% better in F1 22 than Celeron G1620 - 275 vs 250 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 65% cheaper than Core i3-9100F - CA$36.89 vs CA$104.99
- Up to 61% better value when playing F1 22 than Core i3-9100F - CA$0.15 vs CA$0.38 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i3-9100F - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i3-9100F doesn't have integrated graphics
F1 22
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Apr 23rd, 2019
FPS
275
100%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.38/FPS
39%
Price, CA$
CA$104.99
35%
FPS Winner
Buy for CA$104.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 71 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
250
90%
Value, CA$/FPS
CA$0.15/FPS
100%
Price, CA$
CA$36.89
100%
Value Winner
Buy for CA$36.89 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 71 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Apr 23rd, 2019
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i3-9100F | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
---|---|---|
Apr 23rd, 2019 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Core i3 | Collection | Celeron |
Coffee Lake | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
4.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
65 W | TDP | 55 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
36.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
No | Overclockable | No |