In Battlefield 6, the Celeron G1610 is quite a bit slower than the Core i5-13400F. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Celeron G1610
- Consumes up to 15% less energy – 55 vs 65 Watts
- Consumes up to 15% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Core i5-13400F
- Up to 74% faster in Battlefield 6 – 106 vs 61 FPS
- Up to 74% faster in Battlefield 6
- Is 10 years and 1 month newer – Jan 04, 2023 vs Dec 03, 2012
- Is 10 years and 1 month newer
Battlefield 6 FPS Calculator
Celeron G1610 vs Core i5-13400F: Comparison of performance and price
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
61 FPS
58%
Min 1% FPS
46 FPS
58%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.8/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron G1610 vs Core i5-13400F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron G1610 vs Core i5-13400F in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
20%
L3 Cache
2 MB
10%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i5-13400F
Jan 4th, 2023
Cores
10-core
100%
L3 Cache
20 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.5 GHz
96%
Turbo Frequency
4.6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
4800 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron G1610 Dec 3rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-13400F Jan 4th, 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Released | Jan 4th, 2023 |
| – | MSRP | $196.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA1700 |
55 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4), 4800 MHz (DDR5) |
Intel HD | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
