Winner
Intel Celeron J1900
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron J1900 based on its performance and single-core performance.
See full details Intel Celeron J1900 vs Atom E3827 |
Released October, 2013
Intel Celeron J1900
- 2 GHz
- Quad core
7.5 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Celeron J1900
 | Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB | | Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes |
| | Higher clock speed 2 GHz | | Higher GPU clock speed 688 MHz |
VS
Released October, 2013
Intel Atom E3827
- 1.75 GHz
- Dual core
7.1 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Atom E3827
| | Significantly better performance per dollar 0.88 pt/$ |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of J1900 vs E3827 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 | |
| 7.5 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Celeron J1900CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 clock speed | 2 GHz | vs | 1.75 GHz | Around 15% higher clock speed | |||
| Higher GPU clock speed | 688 MHz | vs | 542 MHz | More than 25% higher GPU clock speed | |||
| More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Better turbo clock speed | 854 MHz | vs | 792 MHz | Around 10% better turbo clock speed | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.42 GHz | vs | 1.75 GHz | Around 40% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Slightly better PassMark score | 1,863 | vs | 849 | Around 2.2x better PassMark score | |||
| Slightly better PassMark (Single core) score | 534 | vs | 398 | Around 35% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.42 GHz | vs | 1.75 GHz | Around 40% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly better performance per dollar | 0.88 pt/$ | vs | 0.52 pt/$ | Around 70% better performance per dollar | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron J1900 vs Atom E3827
CompuBench 1.5 (Ocean surface simulation) Data courtesy CompuBench
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Celeron J1900 | vs | Atom E3827 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2 GHz | 1.75 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 | GPU | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics | HD | |
| Number of displays supported | 2 | 2 | |
| GPU clock speed | 688 MHz | 542 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 854 MHz | 792 MHz | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| DDR3L-1333 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Supports ECC | No | Yes | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 12,800 MB/s | 12,800 MB/s | |
| Maximum memory size | 8,192 MB | 8,192 MB | |
details | Celeron J1900 | vs | Atom E3827 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 22 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.42 GHz | 1.75 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.42 GHz | 1.75 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.42 GHz | 1.75 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 10W | 8W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 2.41 $/year | 1.93 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 8.76 $/year | 7.01 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 4.27 pt/W | 4.49 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 8.13W | 6.5W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
 Intel Celeron J1900  Report a correction |  Intel Atom E3827 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $82 | $125 | |
| J1900 vs 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $82 | $72 | |
| J1900 vs J1800 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $82 | $107 | |
| J1900 vs N3150 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $82 | ||
| J1900 vs J3455 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $82 | $94 | |
| J1900 vs J2900 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $82 | $75 | |
| J1900 vs 1037U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $82 | ||
| J1900 vs J3160 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $125 | $50 | |
| 3220 vs 5300 | ||
