Key Differences
In short — FX-9590 outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1610 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G1610 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing FX-9590 is 190 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 88% cheaper than FX-9590 - $37.0 vs $298.02
- Up to 88% better value when playing Remnant II than FX-9590 - $0.47 vs $3.77 per FPS
- Consumes up to 75% less energy than AMD FX-9590 - 55 vs 220 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD FX-9590 doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD FX-9590
- Performs up to 1% better in Remnant II than Celeron G1610 - 79 vs 78 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 8 vs 2 threads
Remnant II
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $37 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 141 minutes ago
Buy for $298.02 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 141 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Jun 11th, 2013
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | AMD FX-9590 |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jun 11th, 2013 |
Celeron | Collection | FX |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Vishera |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 8 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 4.7 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.0 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 220 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 32 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 23.5x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |