Winner
Intel Celeron N3050
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron N3050 based on its power consumption.
See full details Intel Celeron N3050 vs J1800 |
Released January, 2015
Intel Celeron N3050
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
7.8 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Celeron N3050
 | Much better CompuBench 1.5 face detection score 4.48 mPixels/s | | Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB |
| | Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm | | Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core |
VS
Released October, 2013
Intel Celeron J1800
- 2.41 GHz
- Dual core
6.9 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the J1800
| | Significantly higher clock speed 2.41 GHz | | Higher turbo clock speed 2.58 GHz |
| | Much higher GPU clock speed 688 MHz | | Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.58 GHz |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of N3050 vs J1800 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 | |
| 7.8 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Celeron N3050CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better CompuBench 1.5 face detection score | 4.48 mPixels/s | vs | 1.15 mPixels/s | Around 4x better CompuBench 1.5 face detection 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 | |||
| Significantly newer manufacturing process | 14 nm | vs | 22 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better performance per watt | 8.65 pt/W | vs | 3.97 pt/W | Around 2.2x better performance per watt | |||
| More number of displays supported | 3 | vs | 2 | 1 more number of displays supported | |||
| Newer | Jan, 2015 | vs | Oct, 2013 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 2.41 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | More than 50% higher clock speed | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 2.58 GHz | vs | 2.16 GHz | Around 20% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Much higher GPU clock speed | 688 MHz | vs | 320 MHz | Around 2.2x higher GPU clock speed | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.58 GHz | vs | 2.14 GHz | More than 20% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Better performance per dollar | 0.55 pt/$ | vs | 0.48 pt/$ | Around 15% better performance per dollar | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.58 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | More than 60% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron N3050 vs J1800
CompuBench 1.5 (Face detection)
CompuBench 1.5 (Ocean surface simulation) Data courtesy CompuBench
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Celeron N3050 | vs | J1800 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2.41 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 2.16 GHz | 2.58 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual 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 | 3 | 2 | |
| GPU clock speed | 320 MHz | 688 MHz | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3L-1600 | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Supports ECC | No | No | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 25,600 MB/s | 12,800 MB/s | |
| Maximum memory size | 8,192 MB | 8,192 MB | |
details | Celeron N3050 | vs | J1800 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 14 nm | 22 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.14 GHz | 2.58 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.6 GHz | 2.58 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.14 GHz | 2.58 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 6W | 10W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 1.45 $/year | 2.41 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 5.26 $/year | 8.76 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 8.65 pt/W | 3.97 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 4.88W | 8.13W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
 Intel Celeron N3050  Report a correction |  Intel Celeron J1800 Report a correction |
Systems
Looking for a system?
- 26 laptops with the Intel Celeron N3050, starting from $145
- 9 desktops with the Intel Celeron J1800, starting from $147
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $107 | $107 | |
| N2840 vs N3050 | ||
 | VS | |
| $275 | $107 | |
| 4005U vs N3050 | ||
 | VS | |
| $161 | $107 | |
| N3700 vs N3050 | ||
 | VS | |
| $17 | $107 | |
| Z3735F vs N3050 | ||
 | VS | |
| $21 | $107 | |
| x5-Z8300 vs N3050 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $125 | $72 | |
| 3220 vs J1800 | ||
 | VS | |
| $82 | $72 | |
| J1900 vs J1800 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 5200 vs 3470 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $134 | |
| 3217U vs 847 | ||
 | VS | |
| $50 | $125 | |
| 5300 vs 3220 | ||
