Key Differences
In short — Core i9-11900F outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G1620 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-11900F is 3025 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-11900F
- Performs up to 28% better in Valorant than Celeron G1620 - 869 vs 680 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 16 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 80% cheaper than Core i9-11900F - $35.83 vs $175.48
- Up to 73% better value when playing Valorant than Core i9-11900F - $0.06 vs $0.22 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i9-11900F - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-11900F doesn't have integrated graphics
Valorant
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
869
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.22/FPS
27.27272727272727%
Price, €
€194.78
20%
FPS Winner
Buy for €194.78 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 208 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
680
78.25086306098964%
Value, €/FPS
€0.06/FPS
100%
Price, €
€39.77
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €39.77 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 208 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
18.83924458774758%
Multi-Core
723
7.883545960091593%
Intel Core i9-11900F | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Core i9 | Collection | Celeron |
Rocket Lake | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
8 | Cores | 2 |
16 | Threads | 2 |
2.5 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
5.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
65 W | TDP | 55 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
25.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
No | Overclockable | No |