Intel Celeron N2820 vs J1900

older Released November, 2013

Reasons to buy the Intel Celeron N2820

Significantly better performance per watt

7.97 pt/W

older Released October, 2013

Reasons to buy the J1900

	Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,887		Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB
	Much higher GPU clock speed 688 MHz		Better turbo clock speed 854 MHz

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron N2820

Report a correction

Significantly better performance per watt

7.97 pt/W

4.27 pt/W

More than 85% better performance per watt

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron J1900

Report a correction

Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score

2,887

1,452

Around 2x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score

Significantly more l2 cache

2 MB

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

313 MHz

Around 2.2x higher GPU clock speed

Better turbo clock speed

854 MHz

756 MHz

Around 15% better turbo clock speed

More cores

Twice as many cores; run more applications at once

Better geekbench 3 AES single core score

56,900 MB/s

56,000 MB/s

Almost the same

More threads

Twice as many threads

Better performance per dollar

0.52 pt/$

0.45 pt/$

More than 15% better performance per dollar

Better overclocked clock speed (Water)

2.42 GHz

2.13 GHz

Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron N2820

1,514

Celeron J1900

2,927

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron N2820

867

Celeron J1900

924

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron N2820

56,000 MB/s

Celeron J1900

56,900 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Celeron N2820

1,452

Celeron J1900

2,887

GeekBench

Celeron N2820

1,452

Celeron J1900

2,887

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Celeron N2820

960

Celeron J1900

1,863

PassMark (Single Core)

Celeron N2820

513

Celeron J1900

534

summary	Celeron N2820	J1900
Clock speed	2.13 GHz	2 GHz
Turbo clock speed	2.39 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	756 MHz	854 MHz
memory controller
Memory controller	Built-in	Built-in
Memory type
DDR3L-1066
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	8,192 MB

details	Celeron N2820	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	2.4 GHz	2.42 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water)	2.13 GHz	2.42 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air)	2.4 GHz	2.42 GHz
power consumption
TDP	7.5W	10W
Annual home energy cost	1.81 $/year	2.41 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost	6.57 $/year	8.76 $/year
Performance per watt	7.97 pt/W	4.27 pt/W
Typical power consumption	6.09W	8.13W
bus
Architecture	FSB	FSB
Number of links	1	1

Intel Celeron N2820

Report a correction

Intel Celeron J1900

Report a correction

Compare

Popular Comparisons

Comments

Showing 1 comment.

Tester (04:36 PM, June 11, 2014)

These things both suck. I am working on them in a lab install W7 and W8.1. They both remind me of ATOM netbooks. In fact the N2820 really is an ATOM design (just re-branded as Celeron to avoid the ATOM stigma)

	VS
$82		$125
J1900 vs 3220

	VS
$82
J1900 vs J3455

	VS
$82		$107
J1900 vs N3150

	VS
$82		$72
J1900 vs J1800

	VS
$82		$75
J1900 vs 1037U

	VS
$82		$94
J1900 vs J2900

	VS
$82
J1900 vs J3160

	VS
$305		$300
W3520 vs 2500

	VS
$281
6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410

	VS
$272		$350
4790K vs 6700K

	VS
$281
4200U vs 6410

	VS
$180
3470 vs 5200

	VS
$125		$50
3220 vs 5300

	VS
$275		$161
4005U vs N3540

Intel Celeron N2820 vs J1900