Buy on Amazon
£5.56
In Stock
Availability
Availability
No items available
Availability
Availability
Key Differences
In short — Core i7-940 outperforms Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i7-940 is 1477 days older than Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Core i7-940
- Performs up to 0% better in Battlefield IV than Celeron G1610 - 370 vs 369 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 8 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Consumes up to 58% less energy than Intel Core i7-940 - 55 vs 130 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i7-940 doesn't have integrated graphics
Battlefield IV
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
BQTEC Intel Celeron G1610 2.60 GHz Dual-Core Dual-Thread 2 MB Cache 55 W CPU Processor LGA 1155
Buy for £5.56 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 77119 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Core i7-940
Desktop • Nov 17th, 2008
Celeron G1610
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1610
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
426
95.30201342281879%
Multi-Core
739
48.237597911227155%
Intel Core i7-940 | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 17th, 2008 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| Core i7 | Collection | Celeron |
| Bloomfield | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
| Intel Socket 1366 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 2 |
2.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
| 3.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 130 W | TDP | 55 W |
| 45 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
| 22.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
| 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.
