The Core i5-7400 is the comparison's loser – it's a much slower gaming CPU than the Celeron G6900 and it's also a much worse value for money, as it's $130.02 more expensive!
Advantages of the Core i5-7400
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously – 4 vs 2 threads
Advantages of the Celeron G6900
- A much faster CPU for gaming
- Up to 72% cheaper – $49.99 vs $180.01
- A much better value for money for gaming
Core i5-7400 vs Celeron G6900 for Gaming
The CPU's performance in selected game and settings
Core i5-7400
Jan 3rd, 2017
Average FPS
182
95%
Min 1% FPS
121
95%
Price, $
$180.01
27%
Value, $/FPS
$0.98/FPS
27%
Celeron G6900
Jan 4th, 2022
Average FPS
192
100%
Min 1% FPS
127
100%
Price, $
$49.99
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.26/FPS
100%
Core i5-7400 vs Celeron G6900 in My Games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
The FPS you'll get in saved games
Add a Game
Select Settings
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-7400 vs Celeron G6900 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-7400 vs Celeron G6900 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i5-7400
Jan 3rd, 2017
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
6 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3 GHz
88%
Turbo Frequency
3.5 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2400 MHz
50%
Celeron G6900
Jan 4th, 2022
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
4 MB
67%
Base Frequency
3.4 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
4800 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of all specifications
Core i5-7400 | SpecificationsComparison of all specifications | Celeron G6900 |
---|---|---|
General | ||
Jan 3rd, 2017 | Release Date | Jan 4th, 2022 |
Not Available | MSRP | $52.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
Intel Socket 1151 | Socket | Intel Socket 1700 |
Kaby Lake | Codename | Alder Lake |
65 W | Power Consumption | Not Available |
Performance | ||
4 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 2 |
3.0 GHz | Base Frequency | 3.4 GHz |
3.5 GHz | Turbo Frequency | Non-Turbo |
6 MB | L3 Cache | 4 MB |
Other Features | ||
DDR4 @ 2400 MHz | RAM | DDR4 @ 3200 MHz, DDR5 @ 4800 MHz |
HD 630 | Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 710 |
No | Overclockable | No |