Key Differences
In short — Ryzen 5 2600 outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen 5 2600 is 1963 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than AMD Ryzen 5 2600 - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen 5 2600 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen 5 2600
- Performs up to 4% better in ARK: Survival Evolved than Celeron G1620 - 121 vs 116 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 12 vs 2 threads
ARK: Survival Evolved
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Ryzen 5 2600
Desktop • Apr 19th, 2018
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
35.50347222222222%
Multi-Core
723
14.934930799421606%
Intel Celeron G1620 | vs | AMD Ryzen 5 2600 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 19th, 2018 |
| Celeron | Collection | Ryzen 5 |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Pinnacle Ridge |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 6 |
| 2 | Threads | 12 |
| 2.7 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 3.9 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 12 nm |
| 27.0x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | Yes |
