CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of N2807 vs J1900 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores
Celeron N2807
5.0
Celeron J1900
5.1
Celeron N3150
5.1
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance
Celeron N2807
6.8
Celeron J1900
6.9
Celeron N3150
5.3
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics
Celeron N2807
n.d.
Celeron J1900
n.d.
Celeron N3150
n.d.
Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing
Celeron N2807
3.8
Celeron J1900
4.5
Celeron N3150
5.3
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?
Celeron N2807
9.3
Celeron J1900
6.9
Celeron N3150
8.3
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?
Celeron N2807
n.d.
Celeron J1900
n.d.
Celeron N3150
n.d.
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more
7.9

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets
Celeron N2807
7.9
Celeron J1900
7.5
Celeron N3150
7.9

Winner
Intel Celeron N2807 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron N2807  based on its 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

Intel Celeron N2807

Front view of Intel Celeron N2807
Front view of Intel Celeron J1900

Intel Celeron J1900

Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron N2807

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron N2807

Report a correction
Much better performance per watt 11.49 pt/W vs 4.27 pt/W Around 2.8x better performance per watt
Slightly lower typical power consumption 3.49W vs 8.13W 2.3x lower typical power consumption
Newer Feb, 2014 vs Oct, 2013 Release date 4 months later
Slightly lower annual commercial energy cost 3.77 $/year vs 8.76 $/year 2.3x lower annual commercial energy cost
Slightly lower annual home energy cost 1.04 $/year vs 2.41 $/year 2.3x lower annual home energy cost
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 better geekbench 3 AES single core score 56,900 MB/s vs 50,900 MB/s More than 10% better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Higher clock speed 2 GHz vs 1.58 GHz More than 25% higher clock speed
Much higher GPU clock speed 688 MHz vs 313 MHz Around 2.2x higher GPU clock speed
Higher turbo clock speed 2.42 GHz vs 2.17 GHz More than 10% higher turbo clock speed
Better turbo clock speed 854 MHz vs 750 MHz Around 15% better turbo clock speed
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Slightly better PassMark score 1,863 vs 852 Around 2.2x better PassMark score
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.42 GHz vs 2.17 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Slightly better performance per dollar 0.52 pt/$ vs 0.46 pt/$ Around 15% better performance per dollar
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.42 GHz vs 1.58 GHz Around 55% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron N2807 vs J1900

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron N2807
1,447
Celeron J1900
2,927

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron N2807
848
Celeron J1900
924

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron N2807
50,900 MB/s
Celeron J1900
56,900 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Celeron N2807
852
Celeron J1900
1,863

PassMark (Single Core)

Celeron N2807
441
Celeron J1900
534

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Celeron N2807  vs
J1900 
Clock speed 1.58 GHz 2 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.17 GHz 2.42 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad 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 2
GPU clock speed 313 MHz 688 MHz
Turbo clock speed 750 MHz 854 MHz

memory controller
Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3
Channels Single Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No No
Maximum bandwidth 6,400 MB/s 12,800 MB/s
Maximum memory size 4,096 MB 8,192 MB

details

 Celeron N2807  vs
J1900 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 1 MB 2 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 2.17 GHz 2.42 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.58 GHz 2.42 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.17 GHz 2.42 GHz

power consumption
TDP 4.3W 10W
Annual home energy cost 1.04 $/year 2.41 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 3.77 $/year 8.76 $/year
Performance per watt 11.49 pt/W 4.27 pt/W
Typical power consumption 3.49W 8.13W

bus
Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Intel Celeron N2807
Report a correction
Intel Celeron J1900
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

Showing 1 comment.
wlan2 (10:26 PM, August 22, 2016)
Given that this page reports better specs for the J1900 across the board (except power consumption), why does the "CPUBoss Winner" checkbox end up next to the N2807?
comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss