Key Differences
In short — Core i3-10300 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 Core i3-10300 is 2705 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 36% cheaper than Core i3-10300 - €88.88 vs €139.45
- Up to 24% better value when playing Total War: WARHAMMER III than Core i3-10300 - €0.59 vs €0.78 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i3-10300 - 55 vs 65 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i3-10300
- Performs up to 19% better in Total War: WARHAMMER III than Celeron G1610 - 178 vs 150 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 8 vs 2 threads
Total War: WARHAMMER III
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
150
84%
Value, €/FPS
€0.59/FPS
100%
Price, €
€88.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €88.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 29 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
178
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.78/FPS
75%
Price, €
€139.45
63%
FPS Winner
Buy for €139.45 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 29 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | Intel Core i3-10300 |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i3 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 4 |
2 | Threads | 8 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.7 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.4 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 37.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |
No | Overclockable | No |