Key Differences
In short — Core i7-10700F 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 i7-10700F is 2705 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 97% cheaper than Core i7-10700F - £5.56 vs £219.03
- Up to 97% better value when playing Elden Ring than Core i7-10700F - £0.05 vs £1.77 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i7-10700F - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i7-10700F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i7-10700F
- Performs up to 13% better in Elden Ring than Celeron G1610 - 124 vs 110 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 16 vs 2 threads
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
110
88%
Value, £/FPS
£0.05/FPS
100%
Price, £
£5.56
100%
Value Winner
Buy for £5.56 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 10474 minutes ago
Buy for £219.03 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 10475 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | Intel Core i7-10700F |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i7 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 16 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.8 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |