Key Differences
In short — Core i5-8400 outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i5-8400 is 1767 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i5-8400 - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-8400 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i5-8400
- Performs up to 14% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Celeron G1620 - 130 vs 114 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 6 vs 2 threads
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Desktop • Oct 5th, 2017
FPS
130
100%
Value, £/FPS
£1.22/FPS
100%
Price, £
£158.88
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for £158.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 142 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Oct 5th, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | Intel Core i5-8400 |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Oct 5th, 2017 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i5 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Coffee Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 6 |
2 | Threads | 6 |
2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
27.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |