Key Differences
In short — Core i9-11900KF 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 i9-11900KF is 3025 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-11900KF
- Performs up to 31% better in Total War: WARHAMMER III than Celeron G1620 - 197 vs 150 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 i9-11900KF - €20.16 vs €260.99
- Up to 90% better value when playing Total War: WARHAMMER III than Core i9-11900KF - €0.13 vs €1.32 per FPS
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than Intel Core i9-11900KF - 55 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-11900KF doesn't have integrated graphics
Total War: WARHAMMER III
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
197
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.32/FPS
9%
Price, €
€260.99
7%
FPS Winner
Buy for €260.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 161 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
150
76%
Value, €/FPS
€0.13/FPS
100%
Price, €
€20.16
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €20.16 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 161 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 i9-11900KF | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Core i9 | Collection | Celeron |
Rocket Lake | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 2 |
16 | Threads | 2 |
3.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
5.3 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
125 W | TDP | 55 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
35.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |