Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900F 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 i9-10900F is 2705 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 69% cheaper than Core i9-10900F - €88.88 vs €288.88
- Up to 67% better value when playing ARK: Survival Evolved than Core i9-10900F - €0.77 vs €2.31 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i9-10900F - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-10900F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 8% better in ARK: Survival Evolved than Celeron G1610 - 125 vs 116 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 20 vs 2 threads
ARK: Survival Evolved
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
116
92%
Value, €/FPS
€0.77/FPS
100%
Price, €
€88.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €88.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 181 minutes ago
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
125
100%
Value, €/FPS
€2.31/FPS
33%
Price, €
€288.88
30%
FPS Winner
Buy for €288.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 24 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 i9-10900F |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i9 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Comet Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 10 |
2 | Threads | 20 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |