Key Differences
In short — Core i9-14900KF 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 i9-14900KF is 3970 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Celeron G1610
- Up to 91% cheaper than Core i9-14900KF - $30.03 vs $338.95
- Up to 88% better value when playing Far Cry 5 than Core i9-14900KF - $0.18 vs $1.45 per FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-14900KF doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Core i9-14900KF
- Performs up to 42% better in Far Cry 5 than Celeron G1610 - 260 vs 183 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 32 vs 2 threads
Far Cry 5
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
183
70%
Value, €/FPS
€0.18/FPS
100%
Price, €
€33.33
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €33.33 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 136 minutes ago
Desktop • Oct 17th, 2023
FPS
260
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.45/FPS
12%
Price, €
€376.23
8%
FPS Winner
Buy for €376.23 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 135 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Oct 17th, 2023
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1610 | vs | Core i9-14900KF |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 17th, 2023 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i9 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Raptor Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 24 |
2 | Threads | 32 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 6.0 GHz |
55 W | TDP | Not Available |
22 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 32.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |