Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900F outperforms the cheaper Celeron G6900 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G6900 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i9-10900F is 614 days older than the cheaper Celeron G6900.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 1% better in Remnant II than Celeron G6900 - 91 vs 90 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G6900 - 20 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G6900
- Up to 73% cheaper than Core i9-10900F - €78.7 vs €288.88
- Up to 73% better value when playing Remnant II than Core i9-10900F - €0.87 vs €3.17 per FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-10900F doesn't have integrated graphics
Remnant II
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
91
100%
Value, €/FPS
€3.17/FPS
27%
Price, €
€288.88
27%
FPS Winner
Buy for €288.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 210 minutes ago
Buy for €78.7 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 209 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2022
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i9-10900F | vs | Intel Celeron G6900 |
---|---|---|
Apr 30th, 2020 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2022 |
Core i9 | Collection | Celeron |
Comet Lake | Codename | Alder Lake |
Intel Socket 1200 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
10 | Cores | 2 |
20 | Threads | 2 |
2.8 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.4 GHz |
5.2 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
65 W | TDP | Not Available |
14 nm | Process Size | 10 nm |
28.0x | Multiplier | 34.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 710 |
No | Overclockable | No |