Key Differences
In short — Core i7-940 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 i7-940 is 1477 days older than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 59% cheaper than Core i7-940 - €20.16 vs €49.0
- Up to 57% better value when playing Shadow of the Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition than Core i7-940 - €0.12 vs €0.28 per FPS
- Consumes up to 58% less energy than Intel Core i7-940 - 55 vs 130 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i7-940 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i7-940
- Performs up to 2% better in Shadow of the Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition than Celeron G1620 - 178 vs 174 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 8 vs 2 threads
Shadow of the Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
174
97%
Value, €/FPS
€0.12/FPS
100%
Price, €
€20.16
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €20.16 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 166 minutes ago
Buy for €49 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 166 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Nov 17th, 2008
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | Intel Core i7-940 |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Nov 17th, 2008 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i7 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Bloomfield |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1366 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 4 |
2 | Threads | 8 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 130 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 45 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 22.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |