0 Comments
| Intel Celeron N3050 vs J1900 |
Released January, 2015
Intel Celeron N3050
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Celeron N3050
![]() | Much better CompuBench 1.5 face detection score 4.48 mPixels/s | ![]() | Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm |
![]() | Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core | ![]() | More number of displays supported 3 |
VS
Released October, 2013
Intel Celeron J1900
- 2 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the J1900
![]() | Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 56,900 MB/s | ![]() | Higher clock speed 2 GHz |
![]() | Much higher GPU clock speed 688 MHz | ![]() | Higher turbo clock speed 2.42 GHz |
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 | 0.39 mPixels/s | Around 11.5x better CompuBench 1.5 face detection score | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 | |||
More number of displays supported | 3 | vs | 2 | 1 more number of displays supported | |||
Significantly better performance per watt | 8.65 pt/W | vs | 4.27 pt/W | More than 2x better performance per watt | |||
Newer | Jan, 2015 | vs | Oct, 2013 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
| |||||||
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score | 56,900 MB/s | vs | 350.4 MB/s | Around 162.5x better geekbench 3 AES single core score | |||
Higher clock speed | 2 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | Around 25% higher clock speed | |||
Much higher GPU clock speed | 688 MHz | vs | 320 MHz | Around 2.2x higher GPU clock speed | |||
Higher turbo clock speed | 2.42 GHz | vs | 2.16 GHz | More than 10% higher 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 | 885 | More than 2x better PassMark score | |||
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.42 GHz | vs | 2.14 GHz | Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.42 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | More than 50% better overclocked clock speed (Water) |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron N3050 vs J1900
CompuBench 1.5 (Bitcoin mining) Data courtesy CompuBench
Celeron N3050
6.77 mHash/s
Celeron J1900
1.78 mHash/s
CompuBench 1.5 (Face detection)
Celeron N3050
4.48 mPixels/s
Celeron J1900
0.39 mPixels/s
CompuBench 1.5 (T-Rex) Data courtesy CompuBench
Celeron N3050
0.44 fps
Celeron J1900
-1 fps
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron N3050
1,584
Celeron J1900
2,927
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron N3050
879
Celeron J1900
924
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron N3050
350.4 MB/s
Celeron J1900
56,900 MB/s
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Celeron N3050
885
Celeron J1900
1,863
PassMark (Single Core)
Celeron N3050
467
Celeron J1900
534
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Celeron N3050 | vs | J1900 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2 GHz | |
Turbo clock speed | 2.16 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 | 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 | J1900 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 2 | 4 | |
L2 cache | 2 MB | 2 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 | 2.42 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.6 GHz | 2.42 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.14 GHz | 2.42 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 | 4.27 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 4.88W | 8.13W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 |
Intel Celeron N3050 ![]() | Intel Celeron J1900 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | $125 | |
J1900 vs 3220 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | $107 | |
J1900 vs N3150 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$82 | $72 | |
J1900 vs J1800 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$107 | $107 | |
N3050 vs N2840 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$107 | $161 | |
N3050 vs N3700 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$107 | $275 | |
N3050 vs 4005U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$107 | $17 | |
N3050 vs Z3735F | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$305 | $300 | |
W3520 vs 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$272 | $350 | |
4790K vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
4200U vs 6410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
4005U vs N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $230 | |
4770K vs 9590 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$250 | $350 | |
6600K vs 6700K | ||