Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900KF 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 i9-10900KF is 2705 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 94% cheaper than Core i9-10900KF - €20.16 vs €318.6
- Up to 93% better value when playing Dead Space than Core i9-10900KF - €0.14 vs €2.07 per FPS
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than Intel Core i9-10900KF - 55 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-10900KF doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900KF
- Performs up to 7% better in Dead Space than Celeron G1620 - 154 vs 144 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 20 vs 2 threads
Dead Space
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
144
93%
Value, €/FPS
€0.14/FPS
100%
Price, €
€20.16
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €20.16 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 13934 minutes ago
Buy for €318.6 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 13934 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | Intel Core i9-10900KF |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i9 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 10 |
2 | Threads | 20 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.3 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 125 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 37.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |