0 Comments
| Intel Celeron J1900 vs 1007U |
Released October, 2013
Intel Celeron J1900
- 2 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Intel Celeron J1900
![]() | Much more l2 cache 2 MB | ![]() | Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,887 |
![]() | Higher clock speed 2 GHz | ![]() | Much higher GPU clock speed 688 MHz |
VS
Released January, 2013
Intel Celeron 1007U
- 1.5 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the 1007U
![]() | Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 78,500 MB/s | ![]() | Much better CompuBench 1.5 face detection score 3.8 mPixels/s |
![]() | Significantly better turbo clock speed 1,000 MHz | ![]() | Much better performance per dollar 0.99 pt/$ |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of J1900 vs 1007U 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?
VS
| ![]() | Intel Celeron 1007UCPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much more l2 cache | 2 MB | vs | 0.5 MB | 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score | 2,887 | vs | 1,995 | Around 45% better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score | |||
Higher clock speed | 2 GHz | vs | 1.5 GHz | Around 35% higher clock speed | |||
Much higher GPU clock speed | 688 MHz | vs | 350 MHz | More than 95% higher GPU clock speed | |||
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.42 GHz | vs | 1.5 GHz | More than 60% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
More l2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
Lower typical power consumption | 8.13W | vs | 13.81W | More than 40% lower typical power consumption | |||
More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.42 GHz | vs | 1.5 GHz | More than 60% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Newer | Oct, 2013 | vs | Jan, 2013 | Release date 8 months later | |||
Lower annual home energy cost | 2.41 $/year | vs | 4.1 $/year | More than 40% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Lower annual commercial energy cost | 8.76 $/year | vs | 14.89 $/year | More than 40% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score | 78,500 MB/s | vs | 56,900 MB/s | Around 40% better geekbench 3 AES single core score | |||
Much better CompuBench 1.5 face detection score | 3.8 mPixels/s | vs | 0.39 mPixels/s | Around 9.8x better CompuBench 1.5 face detection score | |||
Significantly better turbo clock speed | 1,000 MHz | vs | 854 MHz | More than 15% better turbo clock speed | |||
Much better performance per dollar | 0.99 pt/$ | vs | 0.52 pt/$ | More than 90% better performance per dollar | |||
More number of displays supported | 3 | vs | 2 | 1 more number of displays supported |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron J1900 vs 1007U
CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench
Celeron J1900
1.78 mHash/s
Celeron 1007U
3.71 mHash/s
CompuBench 1.5 (Face detection)
Celeron J1900
0.39 mPixels/s
Celeron 1007U
3.8 mPixels/s
CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench
Celeron J1900
-1 fps
Celeron 1007U
0.33 fps
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron J1900
2,927
Celeron 1007U
2,141
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron J1900
924
Celeron 1007U
1,245
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron J1900
56,900 MB/s
Celeron 1007U
78,500 MB/s
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Celeron J1900
1,863
Celeron 1007U
1,399
PassMark (Single Core)
Celeron J1900
534
Celeron 1007U
818
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Celeron J1900 | vs | 1007U |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 2 GHz | 1.5 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 | GPU | |
Label | Intel® HD Graphics | Intel® HD Graphics | |
Number of displays supported | 2 | 3 | |
GPU clock speed | 688 MHz | 350 MHz | |
Turbo clock speed | 854 MHz | 1,000 MHz | |
memory controller | |||
Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
Memory type | |||
DDR3 | |||
Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
Supports ECC | No | No | |
Maximum bandwidth | 12,800 MB/s | 12,800 MB/s | |
Maximum memory size | 8,192 MB | 32,768 MB |
details | Celeron J1900 | vs | 1007U |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 4 | 2 | |
L2 cache | 2 MB | 0.5 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 22 nm | 22 nm | |
Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 2.42 GHz | 1.5 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.42 GHz | 1.5 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.42 GHz | 1.5 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 10W | 17W | |
Annual home energy cost | 2.41 $/year | 4.1 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 8.76 $/year | 14.89 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 4.27 pt/W | 4.38 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 8.13W | 13.81W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | DMI | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 |
Intel Celeron J1900 ![]() | Intel Celeron 1007U ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$125 | $82 | |
3220 vs J1900 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$107 | $82 | |
N3150 vs J1900 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | ||
J3455 vs J1900 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$72 | $82 | |
J1800 vs J1900 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | ||
J3160 vs J1900 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$94 | $82 | |
J2900 vs J1900 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$225 | $75 | |
3217U vs 1007U | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$300 | $305 | |
2500 vs W3520 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$350 | $272 | |
6700K vs 4790K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6410 vs 4200U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$225 | $134 | |
3217U vs 847 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$180 | ||
5200 vs 3470 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$161 | $275 | |
N3540 vs 4005U | ||