In Atomfall, the Core i5-9600KF is faster than the Celeron G1610. However, it's a much worse value for money, as it's $171 more expensive!
Core i5-9600KF
- Up to 16% faster in Atomfall – 214 vs 185 FPS
- Up to 16% faster in Atomfall
- Is 6 years and 1 month newer – Jan 08, 2019 vs Dec 03, 2012
- Is 6 years and 1 month newer
Celeron G1610
- Up to 78% cheaper – $49.00 vs $219.88
- Up to 78% cheaper
- Up to 75% better value in Atomfall – $0.26 vs $1.02/FPS
- Up to 75% better value in Atomfall
- Consumes up to 42% less energy – 55 vs 95 Watts
- Consumes up to 42% less energy
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
- Can run games without a dedicated GPU using its integrated graphics
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i5-9600KF vs Celeron G1610: Comparison of performance and price
Core i5-9600KF
Jan 8th, 2019
Average FPS
214 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
160 FPS
100%
Price, $
$219.88
22%
Value, $/FPS
$1.02/FPS
25%
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Average FPS
185 FPS
86%
Min 1% FPS
139 FPS
87%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.26/FPS
100%
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i5-9600KF vs Celeron G1610 in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i5-9600KF vs Celeron G1610 in core CPU performance specifications
Core i5-9600KF
Jan 8th, 2019
Cores
6-core
100%
L3 Cache
9 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.7 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
4.6 GHz
100%
Max. DDR4 RAM Speed
2666 MHz
100%
Celeron G1610
Dec 3rd, 2012
Cores
2-core
33%
L3 Cache
2 MB
22%
Base Frequency
2.6 GHz
70%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i5-9600KF Jan 8th, 2019 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Celeron G1610 Dec 3rd, 2012 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
Jan 8th, 2019 | Released | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| – | MSRP | – |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1151 | Socket | LGA1155 |
| 95 W | Power Consumption | 55 W |
| Other Features | ||
| 2666 MHz (DDR4) | RAM | DDR3 |
| No Integrated Graphics | Integrated GPU | Intel HD |
Overclockable | Overclock Support | Not Overclockable |
