Buy on Amazon
$112
In Stock
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
Key Differences
In short — Core i7-880 outperforms the cheaper Celeron G1620 on the selected game parameters. However, the worse performing Celeron G1620 is a better bang for your buck. The better performing Core i7-880 is 918 days older than the cheaper Celeron G1620.
Advantages of Intel Core i7-880
- Performs up to 1% better in Valorant than Celeron G1620 - 689 vs 680 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Celeron G1620 - 8 vs 2 threads
Advantages of Intel Celeron G1620
- Up to 56% cheaper than Core i7-880 - $49.0 vs $112.0
- Up to 56% better value when playing Valorant than Core i7-880 - $0.07 vs $0.16 per FPS
- Consumes up to 42% less energy than Intel Core i7-880 - 55 vs 95 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while Intel Core i7-880 doesn't have integrated graphics
Valorant
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Core i7-880
Desktop • May 30th, 2010
FPS
689
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.16/FPS
43.75000000000001%
Price, $
$112
43%
FPS Winner
CPU Processor Intel Core i7-880 i7 880 3.067 GHz Quad-Core Eight-Thread CPU Processor LGA 1156
Buy for $112 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 1919 minutes ago
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
FPS
680
98.69375907111755%
Value, $/FPS
$0.07/FPS
100%
Price, $
$49
100%
Value Winner
Intel Celeron G1620 2.7 1 LGA 1155 Processor BX80637G1620
Buy for $49 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 1921 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High
Core i7-880
Desktop • May 30th, 2010
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Celeron G1620
Desktop • Dec 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
409
78.65384615384615%
Multi-Core
723
43.738656987295826%
Intel Core i7-880 | vs | Intel Celeron G1620 |
|---|---|---|
| May 30th, 2010 | Release Date | Dec 3rd, 2012 |
| Core i7 | Collection | Celeron |
| Lynnfield | Codename | Ivy Bridge |
| Intel Socket 1156 | Socket | Intel Socket 1155 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
4 | Cores | 2 |
8 | Threads | 2 |
3.1 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 2.7 GHz |
| 3.7 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
| 95 W | TDP | 55 W |
| 45 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
| 23.0x | Multiplier | 27.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD |
| 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.
