Key Differences
In short — Core i5-11400F 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 Core i5-11400F is 3025 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 68% cheaper than Core i5-11400F - $37.0 vs $115.99
- Up to 62% better value when playing Remnant II than Core i5-11400F - $0.47 vs $1.23 per FPS
- Consumes up to 15% less energy than Intel Core i5-11400F - 55 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i5-11400F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i5-11400F
- Performs up to 21% better in Remnant II than Celeron G1610 - 94 vs 78 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 12 vs 2 threads
Remnant II
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $37 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 9587 minutes ago
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
FPS
94
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.23/FPS
38%
Price, $
$115.99
31%
FPS Winner
Buy for $115.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 9588 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Mar 16th, 2021
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610 | vs | Intel Core i5-11400F |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2021 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i5 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Rocket Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 6 |
2 | Threads | 12 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.6 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.4 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 65 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 26.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | No |