Key Differences
In short — Core i9-11900KF 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 i9-11900KF is 3025 days newer than the cheaper Celeron G1610.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610
- Up to 84% cheaper than Core i9-11900KF - $37.0 vs $232.0
- Up to 80% better value when playing Battlefield IV than Core i9-11900KF - $0.1 vs $0.51 per FPS
- Consumes up to 56% less energy than Intel Core i9-11900KF - 55 vs 125 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-11900KF doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i9-11900KF
- Performs up to 24% better in Battlefield IV than Celeron G1610 - 459 vs 369 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610 - 16 vs 2 threads
Battlefield IV
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $37 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2083 minutes ago
Buy for $232 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 2084 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 i9-11900KF |
---|---|---|
Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Mar 16th, 2021 |
Celeron | Collection | Core i9 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Rocket Lake |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
2 | Threads | 16 |
2.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.5 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.3 GHz |
55 W | TDP | 125 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
26.0x | Multiplier | 35.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |