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 Core i3 3220

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i3 3220

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i3 3220

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 3220

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 3.3 GHz vs 2 GHz Around 65% higher clock speed
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,764 vs 534 More than 3.2x better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better turbo clock speed 1,050 MHz vs 854 MHz Around 25% better turbo clock speed
Much better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score 5,814 vs 1,801 Around 3.2x better cinebench r10 32Bit 1-core score
More number of displays supported 3 vs 2 1 more number of displays supported
Much better performance per dollar 2.18 pt/$ vs 0.53 pt/$ Around 4.2x better performance per dollar
Better PassMark score 4,229 vs 1,863 More than 2.2x better PassMark score
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.44 GHz vs 2.42 GHz More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better cinebench r10 32Bit score 12,548 vs 6,342 Around 2x better cinebench r10 32Bit score
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.48 GHz vs 2.42 GHz Around 45% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Celeron J1900

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron J1900

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 2 MB vs 0.5 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Lower typical power consumption 8.13W vs 44.69W 5.5x lower typical power consumption
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Higher GPU clock speed 688 MHz vs 650 MHz More than 5% higher GPU clock speed
Newer Oct, 2013 vs Sep, 2012 Release date over 1 years later
Slightly better performance per watt 4.33 pt/W vs 2.85 pt/W More than 50% better performance per watt
Lower annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year vs 48.18 $/year 5.5x lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year vs 13.25 $/year 5.5x lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 3220 vs Celeron J1900

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

Core i3 3220
173,000 MB/s
Celeron J1900
56,900 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

Cinebench R10 32-Bit

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i3 3220  vs
Celeron J1900 
Clock speed 3.3 GHz 2 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 2500 Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported 3 2
GPU clock speed 650 MHz 688 MHz
Turbo clock speed 1,050 MHz 854 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No No
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 12,800 MB/s
Maximum memory size 32,768 MB 8,192 MB

details

Core i3 3220  vs
Celeron J1900 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 0.5 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.44 GHz 2.42 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.48 GHz 2.42 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.44 GHz 2.42 GHz

power consumption

TDP 55W 10W
Annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year 2.41 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year 8.76 $/year
Performance per watt 2.85 pt/W 4.33 pt/W
Typical power consumption 44.69W 8.13W

bus

Architecture DMI FSB
Number of links 1 1
Intel Core i3 3220
Report a correction
Intel Celeron J1900
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus