CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 215 vs J1900 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 Celeron J1900 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron J1900  based on its performance, single-core performance and power consumption.

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron M 215

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron M 215

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Celeron M 215 vs the Celeron J1900.

Front view of Intel Celeron J1900

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron J1900

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
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 991 Around 3x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Higher clock speed 2 GHz vs 1.33 GHz More than 50% higher clock speed
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs x86 A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
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
More cores 4 vs 1 3 more cores; run more applications at once
Lower typical power consumption 8.13W vs 21.94W 2.7x lower typical power consumption
Significantly better performance per watt 4.27 pt/W vs 1.26 pt/W Around 3.5x better performance per watt
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.42 GHz vs 1.73 GHz Around 40% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
More threads 4 vs 1 3 more threads
Better PassMark score 1,863 vs 322 More than 5.8x better PassMark score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.42 GHz vs 1.33 GHz More than 80% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Lower annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year vs 6.5 $/year 2.7x lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year vs 23.65 $/year 2.7x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron M 215 vs J1900

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron M 215  vs
J1900 
Clock speed 1.33 GHz 2 GHz
Cores Single core Quad core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports dynamic frequency scaling No Yes

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported N/A 2
GPU clock speed N/A 688 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 854 MHz

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1

details

Celeron M 215  vs
J1900 
Architecture x86 x86-64
Threads 1 4
L2 cache 0.5 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 1.73 GHz 2.42 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.33 GHz 2.42 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.73 GHz 2.42 GHz

power consumption

TDP 27W 10W
Annual home energy cost 6.5 $/year 2.41 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 23.65 $/year 8.76 $/year
Performance per watt 1.26 pt/W 4.27 pt/W
Typical power consumption 21.94W 8.13W
Intel Celeron M 215
Report a correction
Intel Celeron J1900
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus