Key Differences
In short — Core i9-13900F 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 i9-13900F is 3684 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-13900F
- Performs up to 109% better in War Thunder than Celeron G1610 - 270 vs 129 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 32 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 85% cheaper than Core i9-13900F - €88.88 vs €584.49
- Up to 68% better value when playing War Thunder than Core i9-13900F - €0.69 vs €2.16 per FPS
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-13900F doesn't have integrated graphics
War Thunder
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Movie
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
FPS
270
100%
Value, €/FPS
€2.16/FPS
31%
Price, €
€584.49
15%
FPS Winner
Buy for €584.49 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 265 minutes ago
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
129
47%
Value, €/FPS
€0.69/FPS
100%
Price, €
€88.88
100%
Value Winner
Buy for €88.88 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 266 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Movie
Desktop • Jan 4th, 2023
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i9-13900F | vs | Intel Celeron G1610 |
---|---|---|
Jan 4th, 2023 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
Core i9 | Collection | Celeron |
Raptor Lake | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
Intel Socket 1700 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
24 | Cores | 2 |
32 | Threads | 2 |
2.0 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
5.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
Not Available | TDP | 55 W |
10 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
20.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
No | Overclockable | No |