Key Differences
In short — Core i7-9700KF 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 i7-9700KF is 2227 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 73% cheaper than Core i7-9700KF - €88.88 vs €328.88
- Up to 71% better value when playing Red Dead Redemption 2 than Core i7-9700KF - €0.6 vs €2.04 per FPS
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than Intel Core i7-9700KF - 55 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i7-9700KF doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i7-9700KF
- Performs up to 8% better in Red Dead Redemption 2 than Celeron G1610 - 161 vs 149 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 8 vs 2 threads
Red Dead Redemption 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
149
92%
Value, €/FPS
€0.6/FPS
100%
Price, €
€88.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €88.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 186 minutes ago
Desktop • Jan 8th, 2019
FPS
161
100%
Value, €/FPS
€2.04/FPS
29%
Price, €
€328.88
27%
FPS Winner
Buy for €328.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 187 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Jan 8th, 2019
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | Intel Core i7-9700KF |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 8th, 2019 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i7 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Coffee Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 8 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.9 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 |