Key Differences
In short — Core i3-9100F outperforms the cheaper Celeron G3930 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G3930 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i3-9100F is 840 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G3930.
Advantages of Celeron G3930
- Up to 59% cheaper than Core i3-9100F - £44.99 vs £108.66
- Up to 40% better value when playing Counter-Strike 2 than Core i3-9100F - £0.18 vs £0.30 per FPS
- Consumes up to 22% less energy than Intel Core i3-9100F - 51 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i3-9100F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Core i3-9100F
- Performs up to 41% better in Counter-Strike 2 than Celeron G3930 - 360 vs 256 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3930 - 4 vs 2 threads
Counter-Strike 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
FPS
256
71%
Value, £/FPS
£0.18/FPS
100%
Price, £
£44.99
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £44.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 293 minutes ago
Buy for £108.66 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 294 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Very High
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
Desktop • Apr 23rd, 2019
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G3930 | vs | Core i3-9100F |
---|---|---|
Jan 3rd, 2017 | Release Date | Apr 23rd, 2019 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i3 |
Kaby Lake | Codename | Coffee Lake |
Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 4 |
2 | Threads | 4 |
2.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.2 GHz |
51 W | TDP | 65 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
29.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
Intel HD 610 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |