In Stray, the Celeron G1610 is slightly slower than the Core i7-10700F. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $196 cheaper!
Celeron G1610
- Up to 80% cheaper – $49.00 vs $245.00
- Up to 80% cheaper
- Up to 80% better value in Stray – $0.17 vs $0.86/FPS
- Up to 80% better value in Stray
- 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 i7-10700F
- Up to 1% faster in Stray – 283 vs 281 FPS
- Up to 1% faster in Stray
- Is 7 years and 4 months newer – Apr 30, 2020 vs Dec 03, 2012
- Is 7 years and 4 months newer
Stray FPS Calculator
Celeron G1610 vs Core i7-10700F: Comparison of performance and price
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
281 FPS
99%
Min 1% FPS
178 FPS
94%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.17/FPS
100%
Core i7-10700F
Apr 30th, 2020
Average FPS
283 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
190 FPS
100%
Price, $
$245
20%
Value, $/FPS
$0.86/FPS
20%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron G1610 vs Core i7-10700F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron G1610 vs Core i7-10700F in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
2 MB
12%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
90%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i7-10700F
Apr 30th, 2020
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
16 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.9 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.8 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2933 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron G1610 Dec 3rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i7-10700F Apr 30th, 2020 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA1200 |
55W | Power Consumption | 65W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2933 MHz (DDR4) |
Intel HD | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
