Key Differences
In short — Core i5-6400 outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i5-6400 is 941 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i5-6400 - 55 vs 65 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i5-6400
- Performs up to 9% better in Battlefield IV than Celeron G1620 - 401 vs 368 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 4 vs 2 threads
Battlefield IV
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Core i5-6400
Desktop • Jul 2nd, 2015
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
36.81368136813681%
Multi-Core
723
23.916639100231556%
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | Intel Core i5-6400 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jul 2nd, 2015 |
| Celeron | Collection | Core i5 |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Skylake |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 4 |
| 2 | Threads | 4 |
| 2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.3 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 27.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
| Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | HD Graphics 530 |
| No | Overclockable | No |
