Key Differences
In short — Core i5-11600KF 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 i5-11600KF is 3025 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 78% cheaper than Core i5-11600KF - $27.05 vs $120.57
- Up to 75% better value when playing Deathloop than Core i5-11600KF - $0.18 vs $0.71 per FPS
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than Intel Core i5-11600KF - 55 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-11600KF doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11600KF
- Performs up to 12% better in Deathloop than Celeron G1610 - 189 vs 168 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 12 vs 2 threads
Deathloop
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
168
88%
Value, €/FPS
€0.18/FPS
100%
Price, €
€30.03
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €30.03 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 119 minutes ago
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
189
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.71/FPS
25%
Price, €
€133.83
22%
FPS Winner
Buy for €133.83 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 119 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | Intel Core i5-11600KF |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2021 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i5 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Rocket Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 6 |
2 | Threads | 12 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.9 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 125 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 39.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |