Key Differences
In short — Celeron G4900 outperforms Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Celeron G4900 is 1947 days newer than Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G4900
- Performs up to 7% better in War Thunder than Celeron G1610 - 138 vs 129 FPS
- Consumes up to 2% less energy than Intel Celeron G1610 - 54 vs 55 Watts
War Thunder
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Movie
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Movie
Celeron G1610
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Celeron G4900
Desktop • Apr 3rd, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | Intel Celeron G4900 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 3rd, 2018 |
| Celeron | Collection | Celeron |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Coffee Lake |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 2 |
| 2 | Threads | 2 |
| 2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.1 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 55 W | TDP | 54 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 26.0x | Multiplier | 31.0x |
| Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 610 |
| No | Overclockable | No |
