Key Differences
In short — Core i5-11400F 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 i5-11400F is 3025 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11400F
- Performs up to 11% better in Valheim than Celeron G1610 - 210 vs 189 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 12 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 24% cheaper than Core i5-11400F - €88.88 vs €117.5
- Up to 16% better value when playing Valheim than Core i5-11400F - €0.47 vs €0.56 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i5-11400F - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-11400F doesn't have integrated graphics
Valheim
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
210
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.56/FPS
83%
Price, €
€117.5
75%
FPS Winner
Buy for €117.5 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 15337 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
189
90%
Value, €/FPS
€0.47/FPS
100%
Price, €
€88.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €88.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 15336 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Highest
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i5-11400F | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Core i5 | Collection | Celeron |
Rocket Lake | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 2 |
12 | Threads | 2 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
4.4 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
65 W | TDP | 55 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
No | Overclockable | No |