Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 7 1700 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 Ryzen 7 1700 is 1550 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 93% cheaper than Ryzen 7 1700 - €20.16 vs €290.43
- Up to 93% better value when playing Battlefield IV than Ryzen 7 1700 - €0.05 vs €0.73 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than AMD Ryzen 7 1700 - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen 7 1700 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 7 1700
- Performs up to 8% better in Battlefield IV than Celeron G1620 - 396 vs 368 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 16 vs 2 threads
Battlefield IV
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
368
92%
Value, €/FPS
€0.05/FPS
100%
Price, €
€20.16
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €20.16 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 41 minutes ago
Buy for €290.43 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 42 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Mar 2nd, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | AMD Ryzen 7 1700 |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Mar 2nd, 2017 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen 7 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Summit Ridge |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 16 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.0 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 30.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |