In Control, the Celeron B820 is slightly slower than the Core i5-9400F. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Celeron B820
- Consumes up to 46% less energy – 35 vs 65 Watts
- Consumes up to 46% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Core i5-9400F
- Up to 2% faster in Control – 248 vs 244 FPS
- Up to 2% faster in Control
- Is 6 years and 6 months newer – Jan 08, 2019 vs Jul 01, 2012
- Is 6 years and 6 months newer
Control FPS Calculator
Celeron B820 vs Core i5-9400F: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core i5-9400F
Jan 8th, 2019
Average FPS
248 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
163 FPS
100%
Price, $
$119.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.48/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron B820 vs Core i5-9400F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron B820 vs Core i5-9400F in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron B820
Jul 1st, 2012
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
2 MB
22%
Base Frequency
1.7 GHz
59%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i5-9400F
Jan 8th, 2019
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
9 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.9 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.1 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron B820 Jul 1st, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-9400F Jan 8th, 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jul 1st, 2012 | Release Date | Jan 8th, 2019 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Laptop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGAG2 (988B) | Socket | LGA1151 |
35W | Power Consumption | 65W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
Intel HD (Sandy Bridge) | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
