Key Differences
In short — Core i3-10105F 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 i3-10105F is 3025 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Core i3-10105F
- Performs up to 7% better in The Last of Us Part I than Celeron G1620 - 136 vs 127 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 8 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 72% cheaper than Core i3-10105F - €20.16 vs €73.0
- Up to 70% better value when playing The Last of Us Part I than Core i3-10105F - €0.16 vs €0.54 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i3-10105F - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i3-10105F doesn't have integrated graphics
The Last of Us Part I
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for €73 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 150 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
127
93%
Value, €/FPS
€0.16/FPS
100%
Price, €
€20.16
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €20.16 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 150 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i3-10105F | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Core i3 | Collection | Celeron |
Comet Lake | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 2 |
3.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
4.4 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
65 W | TDP | 55 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
37.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
No | Overclockable | No |