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 Core i9-12900KF
- Performs up to 44% better in World of Warcraft than Celeron G1610 - 221 vs 153 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 24 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 89% cheaper than Core i9-12900KF - $27.05 vs $246.41
- Up to 84% better value when playing World of Warcraft than Core i9-12900KF - $0.2 vs $1.24 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
World of Warcraft
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Nov 4th, 2021
FPS
221
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.24/FPS
16%
Price, €
€273.51
10%
FPS Winner
Buy for €273.51 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 104 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
153
69%
Value, €/FPS
€0.2/FPS
100%
Price, €
€30.03
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €30.03 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 104 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Nov 4th, 2021
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i9-12900KF | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
---|---|---|
Nov 4th, 2021 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Core i9 | Collection | Celeron |
Alder Lake | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 1700 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
16 | Cores | 2 |
24 | Threads | 2 |
3.2 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
5.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
125 W | TDP | 55 W |
10 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
32.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |