0 Comments
| Intel Celeron J1900 vs Atom C2358 |
Released October, 2013
Intel Celeron J1900
- 2 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Intel Celeron J1900
![]() | Has a built-in GPU Yes | ![]() | Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes |
![]() | Higher turbo clock speed 2.42 GHz | ![]() | Higher clock speed 2 GHz |
VS
Released July, 2013
Intel Atom C2358
- 1.7 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Atom C2358
![]() | Better performance per dollar 0.75 pt/$ | ![]() | Better performance per watt 6.4 pt/W |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| ![]() | Intel Atom C2358CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed | |||
Higher turbo clock speed | 2.42 GHz | vs | 2 GHz | More than 20% higher turbo clock speed | |||
Higher clock speed | 2 GHz | vs | 1.7 GHz | Around 20% higher clock speed | |||
More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.42 GHz | vs | 1.7 GHz | More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.42 GHz | vs | 1.7 GHz | More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Newer | Oct, 2013 | vs | Jul, 2013 | Release date 3 months later | |||
| |||||||
Better performance per dollar | 0.75 pt/$ | vs | 0.52 pt/$ | Around 45% better performance per dollar | |||
Better performance per watt | 6.4 pt/W | vs | 4.27 pt/W | Around 50% better performance per watt |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron J1900 vs Atom C2358
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Celeron J1900
1,863
Atom C2358
961
PassMark (Single Core)
Celeron J1900
534
Atom C2358
448
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Celeron J1900 | vs | Atom C2358 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 2 GHz | 1.7 GHz | |
Turbo clock speed | 2.42 GHz | 2 GHz | |
Cores | Quad core | Dual core | |
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | No | |
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 | |
memory controller | |||
Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
Memory type | |||
DDR3 | |||
Channels | Dual Channel | Single Channel | |
Supports ECC | No | Yes | |
Maximum bandwidth | 12,800 MB/s | 6,400 MB/s | |
Maximum memory size | 8,192 MB | 16,384 MB |
details | Celeron J1900 | vs | Atom C2358 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 4 | 2 | |
Manufacture process | 22 nm | 22 nm | |
Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 2.42 GHz | 1.7 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.42 GHz | 1.7 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.42 GHz | 1.7 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 10W | 7W | |
Annual home energy cost | 2.41 $/year | 1.69 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 8.76 $/year | 6.13 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 4.27 pt/W | 6.4 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 8.13W | 5.69W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 |
Intel Celeron J1900 ![]() | Intel Atom C2358 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | $125 | |
Intel Celeron J1900 vs Core i3 3220 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | $107 | |
Intel Celeron J1900 vs N3150 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | $94 | |
Intel Celeron J1900 vs Pentium J2900 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | $72 | |
Intel Celeron J1900 vs J1800 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | $75 | |
Intel Celeron J1900 vs 1037U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | ||
Intel Celeron J1900 vs J3455 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | $75 | |
Intel Celeron J1900 vs 1007U | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$305 | $300 | |
Intel Xeon W3520 vs Core i5 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$272 | $350 | |
Intel Core i7 4790K vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A8 6410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
Intel Core i5 6200U vs AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
Intel Core i3 4005U vs Pentium N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $230 | |
Intel Core i7 4770K vs AMD FX 9590 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$250 | $350 | |
Intel Core i5 6600K vs i7 6700K | ||