Key Differences
In short — Core i7-11700KF 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 i7-11700KF is 3025 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Core i7-11700KF
- 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 - 16 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 92% cheaper than Core i7-11700KF - €20.16 vs €252.73
- Up to 92% better value when playing Control than Core i7-11700KF - €0.1 vs €1.23 per FPS
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than Intel Core i7-11700KF - 55 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i7-11700KF doesn't have integrated graphics
Control
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
205
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.23/FPS
8%
Price, €
€252.73
7%
FPS Winner
Buy for €252.73 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 163 minutes ago
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 162 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i7-11700KF | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Core i7 | Collection | Celeron |
Rocket Lake | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 2 |
16 | Threads | 2 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
5.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
125 W | TDP | 55 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
36.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |