Buy on Amazon
£152.25
In Stock
Availability
Availability
No items available
Availability
Availability
Key Differences
In short — Core i5-7400 outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i5-7400 is 1492 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i5-7400 - 55 vs 65 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i5-7400
- Performs up to 8% better in Elden Ring than Celeron G1620 - 119 vs 110 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 4 vs 2 threads
Elden Ring
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Core i5-7400
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
FPS
119
100%
Value, £/FPS
£1.28/FPS
100%
Price, £
£152.25
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Intel Core i5-7400 Retail - (1151/Quad Core/3.00GHz/6MB/Kabylake/65W/Graphics) - BX80677I57400
Buy for £152.25 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 35 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Maximum
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Core i5-7400
Desktop • Jan 3rd, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
34.77891156462585%
Multi-Core
723
22.370049504950494%
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | Intel Core i5-7400 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 3rd, 2017 |
| Celeron | Collection | Core i5 |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Kaby Lake |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 4 |
| 2 | Threads | 4 |
| 2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.0 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 27.0x | Multiplier | 30.0x |
| Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | HD 630 |
| No | Overclockable | No |
Similar CPU Comparisons
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
