CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of J1900 vs 3850 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

Intel Celeron J1900

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Celeron J1900

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron J1900

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron J1900

Report a correction
Much higher turbo clock speed 2.42 GHz vs None Compared to all cpus, 2.42 GHz turbo clock speed is just OK
Higher clock speed 2 GHz vs 1.3 GHz Around 55% higher clock speed
Newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 28 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly higher GPU clock speed 688 MHz vs 450 MHz Around 55% higher GPU clock speed
Lower typical power consumption 8.13W vs 20.31W 2.5x lower typical power consumption
Better performance per watt 4.27 pt/W vs 3.56 pt/W More than 20% better performance per watt
Lower annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year vs 6.02 $/year 2.5x lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year vs 21.9 $/year 2.5x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD Sempron 3850

Reasons to consider the
AMD Sempron 3850

Report a correction
Much better CompuBench 1.5 face detection score 3.92 mPixels/s vs 0.39 mPixels/s More than 10x better CompuBench 1.5 face detection score
Much better performance per dollar 2.28 pt/$ vs 0.52 pt/$ Around 4.5x better performance per dollar
Newer Dec, 2013 vs Oct, 2013 Release date 2 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron J1900 vs Sempron 3850

CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench

Celeron J1900
1.78 mHash/s
Sempron 3850
15.62 mHash/s

CompuBench 1.5 (Face detection)

Celeron J1900
0.39 mPixels/s
Sempron 3850
3.92 mPixels/s

CompuBench 1.5 (Ocean surface simulation) Data courtesy CompuBench

Celeron J1900
36.45 fps
Sempron 3850
93.75 fps

CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench

Celeron J1900
-1 fps
Sempron 3850
0.35 fps

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron J1900  vs
Sempron 3850 
Clock speed 2 GHz 1.3 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.42 GHz None
Cores Quad core Quad core

features

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

power consumption

TDP 10W 25W
Annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year 6.02 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year 21.9 $/year
Performance per watt 4.27 pt/W 3.56 pt/W
Typical power consumption 8.13W 20.31W

details

Celeron J1900  vs
Sempron 3850 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 2 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 28 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics Radeon HD 8280
GPU clock speed 688 MHz 450 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1600
DDR3L-1600
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Single Channel
Maximum bandwidth 12,800 MB/s 12,800 MB/s
Intel Celeron J1900
Report a correction
AMD Sempron 3850
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus