Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10980XE 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 i9-10980XE is 2511 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10980XE
- Performs up to 18% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Celeron G1610 - 134 vs 114 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 36 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 97% cheaper than Core i9-10980XE - $27.05 vs $778.72
- Up to 96% better value when playing Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Core i9-10980XE - $0.26 vs $6.45 per FPS
- Consumes up to 67% less energy than Intel Core i9-10980XE - 55 vs 165 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-10980XE doesn't have integrated graphics
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Desktop • Oct 19th, 2019
FPS
134
100%
Value, €/FPS
€6.45/FPS
4%
Price, €
€864.38
3%
FPS Winner
Buy for €864.38 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 50 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
114
85%
Value, €/FPS
€0.26/FPS
100%
Price, €
€30.03
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €30.03 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 49 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Desktop • Oct 19th, 2019
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i9-10980XE | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
---|---|---|
Oct 19th, 2019 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Core i9 Extreme | Collection | Celeron |
Cascade Lake | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 2066 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
18 | Cores | 2 |
36 | Threads | 2 |
3.0 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
4.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
165 W | TDP | 55 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
30.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |