In Atomfall, the Celeron G1610 is slightly slower than the Core i5-9400F. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $71 cheaper!
Celeron G1610
- Up to 59% cheaper – $49.00 vs $119.99
- Up to 59% cheaper
- Up to 54% better value in Atomfall – $0.26 vs $0.57/FPS
- Up to 54% better value in Atomfall
- Consumes up to 15% less energy – 55 vs 65 Watts
- Consumes up to 15% 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 13% faster in Atomfall – 210 vs 186 FPS
- Up to 13% faster in Atomfall
- Is 6 years and 1 month newer – Jan 08, 2019 vs Dec 03, 2012
- Is 6 years and 1 month newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Celeron G1610 vs Core i5-9400F: Comparison of performance and price
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
186 FPS
89%
Min 1% FPS
140 FPS
89%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.26/FPS
100%
Core i5-9400F
Jan 8th, 2019
Average FPS
210 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
157 FPS
100%
Price, $
$119.99
40%
Value, $/FPS
$0.57/FPS
46%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron G1610 vs Core i5-9400F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron G1610 vs Core i5-9400F in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
2 MB
22%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
90%
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 G1610 Dec 3rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i5-9400F Jan 8th, 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Released | Jan 8th, 2019 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA1151 |
55 W | Power Consumption | 65 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
Intel HD | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
