CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of J1900 vs 3600+ 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

7.7

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Celeron J1900 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron J1900  based on its performance and power consumption.

See full details

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron J1900

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron J1900

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 56,900 MB/s vs 52.3 MB/s Around 1088x better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,887 vs 1,441 More than 2x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 8.13W vs 52.81W 6.5x lower typical power consumption
Significantly better performance per watt 4.27 pt/W vs 0.63 pt/W More than 6.8x better performance per watt
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Much lower annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year vs 15.66 $/year 6.5x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year vs 56.94 $/year 6.5x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD Athlon X2 3600+

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon X2 3600+

Report a correction
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.71 GHz vs 2.42 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron J1900 vs Athlon X2 3600+

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 J1900
56,900 MB/s
Athlon X2 3600+
52.3 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron J1900  vs
Athlon X2 3600+ 
Clock speed 2 GHz 1.9 GHz
Cores Quad 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 None
Label Intel® HD Graphics N/A
Number of displays supported 2 N/A
GPU clock speed 688 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 854 MHz N/A

details

Celeron J1900  vs
Athlon X2 3600+ 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 65 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.42 GHz 2.58 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.42 GHz 2.71 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.42 GHz 2.58 GHz

power consumption

TDP 10W 65W
Annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 4.27 pt/W 0.63 pt/W
Typical power consumption 8.13W 52.81W
Intel Celeron J1900
Report a correction
AMD Athlon X2 3600+
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus