Key Differences
In short — Core i5-11600 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 i5-11600 is 3025 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 86% cheaper than Core i5-11600 - €20.16 vs €148.12
- Up to 86% better value when playing Control than Core i5-11600 - €0.1 vs €0.72 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i5-11600 - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-11600 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11600
- Performs up to 3% better in Control than Celeron G1620 - 205 vs 199 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 12 vs 2 threads
Control
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
199
97%
Value, €/FPS
€0.1/FPS
100%
Price, €
€20.16
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €20.16 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 4 minutes ago
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
205
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.72/FPS
13%
Price, €
€148.12
13%
FPS Winner
Buy for €148.12 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 4 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | Intel Core i5-11600 |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2021 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i5 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Rocket Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 6 |
2 | Threads | 12 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.8 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 |