In Atomfall, the Core i5-7400T is slightly faster than the Celeron G1610. However, it's a worse value for money, as it's $29 more expensive!
Core i5-7400T
- Up to 8% faster in Atomfall – 200 vs 185 FPS
- Up to 8% faster in Atomfall
- Is 4 years and 1 month newer – Jan 03, 2017 vs Dec 03, 2012
- Is 4 years and 1 month newer
- Consumes up to 36% less energy – 35 vs 55 Watts
- Consumes up to 36% less energy
Celeron G1610
- Up to 37% cheaper – $49.00 vs $78.02
- Up to 37% cheaper
- Up to 33% better value in Atomfall – $0.26 vs $0.39/FPS
- Up to 33% better value in Atomfall
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i5-7400T vs Celeron G1610: Comparison of performance and price
Core i5-7400T
Jan 3rd, 2017
Average FPS
200 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
150 FPS
100%
Price, $
$78.02
62%
Value, $/FPS
$0.39/FPS
67%
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
185 FPS
92%
Min 1% FPS
139 FPS
93%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.26/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-7400T vs Celeron G1610 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-7400T vs Celeron G1610 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i5-7400T
Jan 3rd, 2017
Cores
4-core
100%
L3 Cache
6 MB
100%
Base Frequency
2.4 GHz
92%
Turbo Frequency
3 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2400 MHz
100%
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
50%
L3 Cache
2 MB
33%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i5-7400T Jan 3rd, 2017 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Celeron G1610 Dec 3rd, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Jan 3rd, 2017 | Released | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1151 | Socket | LGA1155 |
35 W | Power Consumption | 55 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2400 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
| HD 630 | Integrated GPU | Intel HD |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
