Key Differences
In short — Core i9-12900KF 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 i9-12900KF is 3258 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 86% cheaper than Core i9-12900KF - $27.05 vs $199.6
- Up to 81% better value when playing Star Wars Jedi: Survivor than Core i9-12900KF - $0.28 vs $1.44 per FPS
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than Intel Core i9-12900KF - 55 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-12900KF doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i9-12900KF
- Performs up to 44% better in Star Wars Jedi: Survivor than Celeron G1610 - 154 vs 107 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 24 vs 2 threads
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
107
69%
Value, €/FPS
€0.28/FPS
100%
Price, €
€30.03
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €30.03 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 31 minutes ago
Desktop • Nov 4th, 2021
FPS
154
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.44/FPS
19%
Price, €
€221.56
13%
FPS Winner
Buy for €221.56 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 32 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Nov 4th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | Intel Core i9-12900KF |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Nov 4th, 2021 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i9 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Alder Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 16 |
2 | Threads | 24 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.2 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 125 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 32.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |