Buy on Amazon
$225
In Stock
Availability
Availability
No items available
Availability
Availability
Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900F outperforms Celeron G1610T on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Core i9-10900F is 2705 days newer than Celeron G1610T.
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1610T
- Consumes up to 46% less energy than Intel Core i9-10900F - 35 vs 65 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i9-10900F doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900F
- Performs up to 28% better in Star Wars Jedi: Survivor than Celeron G1610T - 134 vs 105 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1610T - 20 vs 2 threads
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Core i9-10900F
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
134
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.68/FPS
100%
Price, $
$225
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Intel Core i9-10900F Desktop Processor 10 Cores up to 5.2 GHz Without Processor Graphics LGA 1200 (Intel 400 Series chipset) 65W
Buy for $225 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 5377 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Epic
Celeron G1610T
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Core i9-10900F
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Celeron G1610T | vs | Intel Core i9-10900F |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
| Celeron | Collection | Core i9 |
| Ivy Bridge | Codename | Comet Lake |
| Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| 2 | Cores | 10 |
| 2 | Threads | 20 |
| 2.3 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.8 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.2 GHz |
35 W | TDP | 65 W |
| 22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
| 23.0x | Multiplier | 28.0x |
Intel HD | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable | No |
Similar CPU Comparisons
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
