Key Differences
In short — Core i7-13700K outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G1610 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i7-13700K is 3585 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Celeron G1610
- Up to 88% cheaper than Core i7-13700K - $30.03 vs $250.79
- Up to 81% better value when playing New World than Core i7-13700K - $0.34 vs $1.77 per FPS
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than Intel Core i7-13700K - 55 vs 125 Watts
Advantages of Core i7-13700K
- Performs up to 60% better in New World than Celeron G1610 - 157 vs 98 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 24 vs 2 threads
New World
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
98
62%
Value, €/FPS
€0.34/FPS
100%
Price, €
€33.33
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €33.33 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 140 minutes ago
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
FPS
157
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.77/FPS
19%
Price, €
€278.38
11%
FPS Winner
Buy for €278.38 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 141 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1610 | vs | Core i7-13700K |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Sep 27th, 2022 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i7 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Raptor Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 16 |
2 | Threads | 24 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.4 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 125 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 |
No | Overclockable | Yes |