Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900F outperforms the cheaper Celeron G6900 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G6900 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-10900F is 614 days older than the cheaper Celeron G6900.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G6900
- Up to 83% cheaper than Core i9-10900F - $29.24 vs $175.49
- Up to 84% better value when playing Battlefield 1 than Core i9-10900F - $0.13 vs $0.79 per FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-10900F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 0% better in Battlefield 1 than Celeron G6900 - 246 vs 245 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G6900 - 20 vs 2 threads
Battlefield 1
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2022
FPS
245
99%
Value, €/FPS
€0.13/FPS
100%
Price, €
€32.46
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €32.46 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 146 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
246
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.79/FPS
16%
Price, €
€194.79
16%
FPS Winner
Buy for €194.79 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 147 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2022
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G6900 | vs | Intel Core i9-10900F |
---|---|---|
Jan 4th, 2022 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i9 |
Alder Lake | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1700 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 10 |
2 | Threads | 20 |
3.4 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
Not Available | TDP | 65 W |
10 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
34.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
UHD Graphics 710 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |