CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of J1900 vs C2750 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 Atom C2750 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Atom C2750  based on its performance, single-core performance and value.

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
Front view of Intel Atom C2750

Intel Atom C2750

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron J1900

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron J1900

Report a correction
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
Lower typical power consumption 8.13W vs 16.25W 2x lower typical power consumption
Lower annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year vs 4.82 $/year 2x lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year vs 17.52 $/year 2x lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Oct, 2013 vs Jul, 2013 Release date 3 months later
Front view of Intel Atom C2750

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom C2750

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 412,200 MB/s vs 56,900 MB/s Around 7.2x better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Higher clock speed 2.4 GHz vs 2 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 1.38 pt/$ vs 0.52 pt/$ Around 2.8x better performance per dollar
Much better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 6,808 vs 2,927 More than 2.2x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Much better performance per watt 11.79 pt/W vs 4.27 pt/W More than 2.8x better performance per watt
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Slightly higher turbo clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 2.42 GHz More than 5% higher turbo clock speed
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron J1900 vs Atom C2750

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
Atom C2750
412,200 MB/s

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

Atom C2750
11,258

Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron J1900  vs
Atom C2750 
Clock speed 2 GHz 2.4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.42 GHz 2.6 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core

features

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 Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 12,800 MB/s 12,800 MB/s

details

Celeron J1900  vs
Atom C2750 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
Manufacture process 22 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.42 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.42 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.42 GHz 2.4 GHz

power consumption

TDP 10W 20W
Annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year 4.82 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year 17.52 $/year
Performance per watt 4.27 pt/W 11.79 pt/W
Typical power consumption 8.13W 16.25W

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Intel Celeron J1900
Report a correction
Intel Atom C2750
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus