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 J3160

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel J3160

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel J3160

Reasons to consider the
Intel J3160

Report a correction
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 newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Higher clock speed 1.6 GHz vs 1.1 GHz More than 45% higher clock speed
Much better performance per watt 9.06 pt/W vs 2.39 pt/W More than 3.8x better performance per watt
More number of displays supported 3 vs 2 1 more number of displays supported
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.24 GHz vs 1.1 GHz More than 2x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Newer Jan, 2016 vs Jun, 2011 Release date over 4 years later
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Lower typical power consumption 4.88W vs 13.81W 2.8x lower typical power consumption
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Slightly better geekbench 3 AES single core score 346.5 MB/s vs 58.6 MB/s Around 6x better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.24 GHz vs 1.1 GHz More than 2x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Lower annual home energy cost 1.45 $/year vs 4.1 $/year 2.8x lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 5.26 $/year vs 14.89 $/year 2.8x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of Intel Celeron 847E

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 847E

Report a correction
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Better turbo clock speed 800 MHz vs 700 MHz Around 15% better turbo clock speed

Benchmarks Real world tests of J3160 vs Celeron 847E

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

J3160
2,587
Celeron 847E
1,210

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

J3160
832.5
Celeron 847E
882.5

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

J3160
346.5 MB/s
Celeron 847E
58.6 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

J3160
1,832
Celeron 847E
1,026

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

J3160  vs
Celeron 847E 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 1.1 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling No Yes

power consumption

TDP 6W 17W
Annual home energy cost 1.45 $/year 4.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 5.26 $/year 14.89 $/year
Performance per watt 9.06 pt/W 2.39 pt/W
Typical power consumption 4.88W 13.81W

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1

details

J3160  vs
Celeron 847E 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 14 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.24 GHz 1.1 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.24 GHz 1.1 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.24 GHz 1.1 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics 400 Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported 3 2
GPU clock speed 320 MHz 350 MHz
Turbo clock speed 700 MHz 800 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 21,333.32 MB/s
Maximum memory size 8,192 MB 16,998.4 MB
Intel J3160
Report a correction
Intel Celeron 847E
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus