Key Differences
In short — Core i9-7940X outperforms Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i9-7940X is 1733 days newer than Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-7940X
- Performs up to 7% better in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II than Celeron G1620 - 204 vs 190 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 28 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Consumes up to 67% less energy than Intel Core i9-7940X - 55 vs 165 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-7940X doesn't have integrated graphics
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Extreme
Core i9-7940X
Desktop • Sep 1st, 2017
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
29.854014598540147%
Multi-Core
723
7.286102993046457%
Intel Core i9-7940X | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
Sep 1st, 2017 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| Core i9 | Collection | Celeron |
| Skylake | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
| Intel Socket 2066 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
14 | Cores | 2 |
28 | Threads | 2 |
3.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
| 4.3 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 165 W | TDP | 55 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
31.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
Yes | Overclockable | No |
