Key Differences
In short — Core i9-9940X 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 i9-9940X is 2146 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-9940X
- Performs up to 8% better in God of War than Celeron G1610 - 175 vs 162 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 28 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 93% cheaper than Core i9-9940X - $27.05 vs $365.59
- Up to 92% better value when playing God of War than Core i9-9940X - $0.19 vs $2.32 per FPS
- Consumes up to 67% less energy than Intel Core i9-9940X - 55 vs 165 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-9940X doesn't have integrated graphics
God of War
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for €405.8 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 37 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
162
92%
Value, €/FPS
€0.19/FPS
100%
Price, €
€30.03
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €30.03 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 35 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 19th, 2018
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i9-9940X | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
---|---|---|
Oct 19th, 2018 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Core i9 | Collection | Celeron |
Skylake | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 2066 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
14 | Cores | 2 |
28 | Threads | 2 |
3.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
4.4 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
165 W | TDP | 55 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
33.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |