Key Differences
In short — Core i5-11600K outperforms the cheaper Celeron G3900 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G3900 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i5-11600K is 2023 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G3900.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11600K
- Performs up to 12% better in F1 22 than Celeron G3900 - 286 vs 256 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G3900 - 12 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G3900
- Up to 71% cheaper than Core i5-11600K - €60.9 vs €208.88
- Up to 67% better value when playing F1 22 than Core i5-11600K - €0.24 vs €0.73 per FPS
- Consumes up to 59% less energy than Intel Core i5-11600K - 51 vs 125 Watts
F1 22
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
286
100%
Value, €/FPS
€0.73/FPS
32%
Price, €
€208.88
29%
FPS Winner
Buy for €208.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2550 minutes ago
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
FPS
256
89%
Value, €/FPS
€0.24/FPS
100%
Price, €
€60.9
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €60.9 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2549 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra High
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2015
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i5-11600K | vs | Intel Celeron G3900 |
---|---|---|
Mar 16th, 2021 | Release Date | Sep 1st, 2015 |
Core i5 | Collection | Celeron |
Rocket Lake | Codename | Skylake |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1151 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 2 |
12 | Threads | 2 |
3.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
4.9 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
125 W | TDP | 51 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
39.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
UHD Graphics 750 | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 510 |
Yes | Overclockable | No |