In Valheim, the Celeron G1610 is slightly slower than the Core i7-9700F. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $230 cheaper!
Celeron G1610
- Up to 82% cheaper – $49.00 vs $279.00
- Up to 82% cheaper
- Up to 82% better value in Valheim – $0.22 vs $1.25/FPS
- Up to 82% better value in Valheim
- 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 i7-9700F
- Up to 2% faster in Valheim – 222 vs 218 FPS
- Up to 2% faster in Valheim
- Is 6 years and 4 months newer – Apr 23, 2019 vs Dec 03, 2012
- Is 6 years and 4 months newer
Valheim FPS Calculator
Celeron G1610 vs Core i7-9700F: Comparison of performance and price
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
218 FPS
98%
Min 1% FPS
78 FPS
90%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.22/FPS
100%
Core i7-9700F
Apr 23rd, 2019
Average FPS
222 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
87 FPS
100%
Price, $
$279
17%
Value, $/FPS
$1.25/FPS
18%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron G1610 vs Core i7-9700F in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron G1610 vs Core i7-9700F in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
25%
L3 Cache
2 MB
17%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
87%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i7-9700F
Apr 23rd, 2019
Cores
8-core
100%
L3 Cache
12 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.7 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron G1610 Dec 3rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i7-9700F Apr 23rd, 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 23rd, 2019 |
| – | MSRP | $333.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA1151 |
55W | Power Consumption | 65W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 2666 MHz (DDR4) |
Intel HD | Integrated GPU | No Integrated Graphics |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
