Key Differences
In short — Core i3-10320 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 i3-10320 is 2705 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 69% cheaper than Core i3-10320 - $27.05 vs $87.75
- Up to 64% better value when playing A Plague Tale: Requiem than Core i3-10320 - $0.26 vs $0.73 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i3-10320 - 55 vs 65 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i3-10320
- Performs up to 15% better in A Plague Tale: Requiem than Celeron G1610 - 134 vs 117 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 8 vs 2 threads
A Plague Tale: Requiem
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
117
87%
Value, €/FPS
€0.26/FPS
100%
Price, €
€30.03
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €30.03 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 29 minutes ago
Buy for €97.4 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 29 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | Intel Core i3-10320 |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i3 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 4 |
2 | Threads | 8 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.6 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |
No | Overclockable | No |