CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of J1800 vs 1037U among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

No winner declared

Too close to call

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS
Front view of Intel Celeron 1037U

Intel Celeron 1037U

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron J1800

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron J1800

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 2.41 GHz vs 1.8 GHz Around 35% higher clock speed
Much higher GPU clock speed 688 MHz vs 350 MHz More than 95% higher GPU clock speed
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.58 GHz vs 1.8 GHz Around 45% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Newer Oct, 2013 vs Jan, 2013 Release date 8 months later
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.58 GHz vs 1.8 GHz Around 45% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Celeron 1037U

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 1037U

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 94,750 MB/s vs 60.6 MB/s More than 1563.5x better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Significantly better turbo clock speed 1,000 MHz vs 792 MHz More than 25% better turbo clock speed
More number of displays supported 3 vs 2 1 more number of displays supported
Better performance per dollar 1.15 pt/$ vs 0.56 pt/$ More than 2x better performance per dollar
Better CompuBench 1.5 face detection score 4.01 mPixels/s vs 1.15 mPixels/s Around 3.5x better CompuBench 1.5 face detection score

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron J1800 vs 1037U

CompuBench 1.5 (Face detection)

Celeron J1800
1.15 mPixels/s
Celeron 1037U
4.01 mPixels/s

CompuBench 1.5 (Ocean surface simulation) Data courtesy CompuBench

Celeron J1800
-1 fps
Celeron 1037U
79.08 fps

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron J1800
60.6 MB/s
Celeron 1037U
94,750 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron J1800  vs
1037U 
Clock speed 2.41 GHz 1.8 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported 2 3
GPU clock speed 688 MHz 350 MHz
Turbo clock speed 792 MHz 1,000 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No No
Maximum bandwidth 12,800 MB/s 12,800 MB/s
Maximum memory size 8,192 MB 32,768 MB

details

Celeron J1800  vs
1037U 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.58 GHz 1.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.58 GHz 1.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.58 GHz 1.8 GHz

power consumption

TDP 10W 17W
Annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year 4.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year 14.89 $/year
Performance per watt 4.02 pt/W 5.06 pt/W
Typical power consumption 8.13W 13.81W

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1
Intel Celeron J1800
Report a correction
Intel Celeron 1037U
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus