Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 9 5900X 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 Ryzen 9 5900X is 2894 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Celeron G1610
- Up to 88% cheaper than Ryzen 9 5900X - €28.50 vs €242.21
- Up to 86% better value when playing God of War than Ryzen 9 5900X - €0.18 vs €1.31 per FPS
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD Ryzen 9 5900X - 55 vs 105 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen 9 5900X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Ryzen 9 5900X
- Performs up to 14% better in God of War than Celeron G1610 - 185 vs 162 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 24 vs 2 threads
God of War
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
162
88%
Value, €/FPS
€0.18/FPS
100%
Price, €
€28.5
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €28.5 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 264 minutes ago
Buy for €242.21 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 264 minutes ago
Trending Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Nov 5th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1610 | vs | Ryzen 9 5900X |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Nov 5th, 2020 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen 9 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Vermeer |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 12 |
2 | Threads | 24 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.8 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 105 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 37.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |