Key Differences
In short — Core i9-7900X outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i9-7900X is 1666 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 79% cheaper than Core i9-7900X - €72.66 vs €352.66
- Consumes up to 61% less energy than Intel Core i9-7900X - 55 vs 140 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-7900X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i9-7900X
- Performs up to 15% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Celeron G1610 - 131 vs 114 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 20 vs 2 threads
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Buy for €72.66 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 348 minutes ago
Buy for €352.66 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 351 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Jun 26th, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | Intel Core i9-7900X |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jun 26th, 2017 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i9 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Skylake-E/EP |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 2066 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 10 |
2 | Threads | 20 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.3 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.3 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 140 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 33.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |