Key Differences
In short — Core i7-10700F 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 i7-10700F is 2705 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 67% cheaper than Core i7-10700F - €88.88 vs €271.25
- Up to 64% better value when playing World of Tanks than Core i7-10700F - €0.18 vs €0.5 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i7-10700F - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i7-10700F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i7-10700F
- Performs up to 7% better in World of Tanks than Celeron G1610 - 540 vs 503 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 16 vs 2 threads
World of Tanks
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
503
93%
Value, €/FPS
€0.18/FPS
100%
Price, €
€88.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €88.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 179 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
540
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.5/FPS
36%
Price, €
€271.25
32%
FPS Winner
Buy for €271.25 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 180 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 i7-10700F |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i7 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 16 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.9 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.8 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 29.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |