Key Differences
In short — Core i9-13900KF 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 i9-13900KF is 3585 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 83% cheaper than Core i9-13900KF - €88.88 vs €536.62
- Up to 82% better value when playing Tom Clancy’s The Division 2 than Core i9-13900KF - €0.4 vs €2.23 per FPS
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than Intel Core i9-13900KF - 55 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-13900KF doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i9-13900KF
- Performs up to 9% better in Tom Clancy’s The Division 2 than Celeron G1610 - 241 vs 222 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 32 vs 2 threads
Tom Clancy’s The Division 2
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
222
92%
Value, €/FPS
€0.4/FPS
100%
Price, €
€88.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €88.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 248 minutes ago
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
FPS
241
100%
Value, €/FPS
€2.23/FPS
17%
Price, €
€536.62
16%
FPS Winner
Buy for €536.62 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 248 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Sep 27th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | Intel Core i9-13900KF |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Sep 27th, 2022 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i9 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Raptor Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 24 |
2 | Threads | 32 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.0 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.8 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 125 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 30.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |