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 N2820

Front view of Intel Celeron N2820
Front view of Intel Celeron J1900

Intel Celeron J1900

CPUBoss Winner
Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Celeron N2820

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron N2820

Report a correction
Significantly better performance per watt 7.97 pt/W vs 4.27 pt/W More than 85% better performance per watt
Front view of Intel Celeron J1900

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron J1900

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,887 vs 1,452 Around 2x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
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 313 MHz Around 2.2x higher GPU clock speed
Better turbo clock speed 854 MHz vs 756 MHz Around 15% better turbo clock speed
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Better geekbench 3 AES single core score 56,900 MB/s vs 56,000 MB/s Almost the same
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Better performance per dollar 0.52 pt/$ vs 0.45 pt/$ More than 15% better performance per dollar
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.42 GHz vs 2.13 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron N2820 vs J1900

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

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Celeron N2820  vs
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  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 2.4 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

Read more

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)
comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss