CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of J1900 vs 1037U among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores
Celeron J1900
5.1
Celeron 1037U
3.4
Celeron N3150
5.1
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance
Celeron J1900
5.3
Celeron 1037U
5.8
Celeron N3150
5.2
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics
Celeron J1900
n.d.
Celeron 1037U
0.5
Celeron N3150
n.d.
Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing
Celeron J1900
5.1
Celeron 1037U
5.8
Celeron N3150
6.0
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?
Celeron J1900
6.7
Celeron 1037U
5.7
Celeron N3150
8.1
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?
Celeron J1900
n.d.
Celeron 1037U
n.d.
Celeron N3150
n.d.
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more
7.7

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets
Celeron J1900
7.7
Celeron 1037U
6.4
Celeron N3150
8.4

Winner
Intel Celeron 1037U 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron 1037U  based on its 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

Intel Celeron J1900

Front view of Intel Celeron J1900
Front view of Intel Celeron 1037U

Intel Celeron 1037U

CPUBoss Winner
Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron J1900

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron J1900

Report a correction
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
Much higher GPU clock speed 688 MHz vs 350 MHz More than 95% higher GPU clock speed
Higher clock speed 2 GHz vs 1.8 GHz More than 10% 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 1.8 GHz Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
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
Newer Oct, 2013 vs Jan, 2013 Release date 8 months later
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.42 GHz vs 1.8 GHz Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
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
Front view of Intel Celeron 1037U

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 1037U

Report a correction
Much better CompuBench 1.5 face detection score 4.01 mPixels/s vs 0.39 mPixels/s Around 10.2x better CompuBench 1.5 face detection score
Much better performance per dollar 1.14 pt/$ vs 0.52 pt/$ Around 2.2x better performance per dollar
Significantly better turbo clock speed 1,000 MHz vs 854 MHz More than 15% better turbo clock speed
More number of displays supported 3 vs 2 1 more number of displays supported
Better geekbench 3 single core score 1,468 vs 924 Around 60% better geekbench 3 single core score
Better performance per watt 5.02 pt/W vs 4.27 pt/W More than 15% better performance per watt

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron J1900 vs 1037U

CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench

Celeron J1900
1.78 mHash/s
Celeron 1037U
3.03 mHash/s

CompuBench 1.5 (Face detection)

Celeron J1900
0.39 mPixels/s
Celeron 1037U
4.01 mPixels/s

CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench

Celeron J1900
-1 fps
Celeron 1037U
0.39 fps

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron J1900
2,927
Celeron 1037U
2,571

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron J1900
924
Celeron 1037U
1,468

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron J1900
56,900 MB/s
Celeron 1037U
94,750 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Celeron J1900
1,863
Celeron 1037U
1,733

PassMark (Single Core)

Celeron J1900
534
Celeron 1037U
952

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Celeron J1900  vs
1037U 
Clock speed 2 GHz 1.8 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
1037U 
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 1.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.42 GHz 1.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.42 GHz 1.8 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 5.02 pt/W
Typical power consumption 8.13W 13.81W

bus
Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1
Intel Celeron J1900
Report a correction
Intel Celeron 1037U
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 2 comments.
3ks (02:02 PM, July 3, 2015)
I think J1900 is better
Anton Berro (06:47 AM, March 21, 2015)
Thats the question... Who is better...
comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss