Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 5 1600X 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 5 1600X is 1590 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 62% cheaper than Ryzen 5 1600X - €88.88 vs €231.18
- Up to 60% better value when playing God of War than Ryzen 5 1600X - €0.55 vs €1.36 per FPS
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than AMD Ryzen 5 1600X - 55 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen 5 1600X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
- Performs up to 5% better in God of War than Celeron G1610 - 170 vs 162 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 12 vs 2 threads
God of War
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
162
95%
Value, €/FPS
€0.55/FPS
100%
Price, €
€88.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €88.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 332 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 11th, 2017
FPS
170
100%
Value, €/FPS
€1.36/FPS
40%
Price, €
€231.18
38%
FPS Winner
Buy for €231.18 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 112 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 11th, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | AMD Ryzen 5 1600X |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 11th, 2017 |
Celeron | Collection | Ryzen 5 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Summit Ridge |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 6 |
2 | Threads | 12 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 95 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |