Key Differences
In short — Core i3-10320 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 i3-10320 is 2705 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 41% cheaper than Core i3-10320 - €88.88 vs €151.33
- Up to 36% better value when playing Fortnite than Core i3-10320 - €0.42 vs €0.66 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i3-10320 - 55 vs 65 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i3-10320
- Performs up to 8% better in Fortnite than Celeron G1610 - 228 vs 212 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 8 vs 2 threads
Fortnite
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
212
92%
Value, €/FPS
€0.42/FPS
100%
Price, €
€88.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €88.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 130 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
228
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.66/FPS
63%
Price, €
€151.33
58%
FPS Winner
Buy for €151.33 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 130 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | Intel Core i3-10320 |
---|---|---|
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 | 3.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.6 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 |
No | Overclockable | No |