In Atomfall, the Celeron G1610 is slower than the Core i9-14900K. However, it's a much better value for money, as it's $404 cheaper!
Celeron G1610
- Up to 89% cheaper – $49.00 vs $452.68
- Up to 89% cheaper
- Up to 86% better value in Atomfall – $0.26 vs $1.82/FPS
- Up to 86% better value in Atomfall
- Consumes up to 56% less energy – 55 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 56% less energy
Core i9-14900K
- Up to 33% faster in Atomfall – 248 vs 187 FPS
- Up to 33% faster in Atomfall
- Is 10 years and 10 months newer – Oct 17, 2023 vs Dec 03, 2012
- Is 10 years and 10 months newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Celeron G1610 vs Core i9-14900K: Comparison of performance and price
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
187 FPS
75%
Min 1% FPS
140 FPS
75%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.26/FPS
100%
Core i9-14900K
Oct 17th, 2023
Average FPS
248 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
186 FPS
100%
Price, $
$452.68
10%
Value, $/FPS
$1.82/FPS
14%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Celeron G1610 vs Core i9-14900K in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Celeron G1610 vs Core i9-14900K in core CPU performance specifications
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
8%
L3 Cache
2 MB
6%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
81%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core i9-14900K
Oct 17th, 2023
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.2 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
5600 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Celeron G1610 Dec 3rd, 2012 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core i9-14900K Oct 17th, 2023 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Released | Oct 17th, 2023 |
| – | MSRP | $589.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1155 | Socket | LGA1700 |
55 W | Power Consumption | 125 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 3200 MHz (DDR4), 5600 MHz (DDR5) |
| Intel HD | Integrated GPU | UHD Graphics 770 |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
