Key Differences
In short — Core i5-8400 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 i5-8400 is 1767 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Core i5-8400
- Performs up to 13% better in Battlefield 2042 than Celeron G1610 - 161 vs 143 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 6 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 53% cheaper than Core i5-8400 - €88.88 vs €188.88
- Up to 47% better value when playing Battlefield 2042 than Core i5-8400 - €0.62 vs €1.17 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i5-8400 - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-8400 doesn't have integrated graphics
Battlefield 2042
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for €188.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 168 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
143
88%
Value, €/FPS
€0.62/FPS
100%
Price, €
€88.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €88.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 167 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 5th, 2017
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i5-8400 | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
---|---|---|
Oct 5th, 2017 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Core i5 | Collection | Celeron |
Coffee Lake | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
6 | Cores | 2 |
6 | Threads | 2 |
2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
4.0 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
65 W | TDP | 55 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
28.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
No | Overclockable | No |