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 J3455

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel J3455

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel J3455

Reasons to consider the
Intel J3455

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
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
Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 22 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly better performance per watt 8.3 pt/W vs 4.2 pt/W Around 2x better performance per watt
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 4,564.5 vs 3,118 More than 45% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Better geekbench 3 single core score 1,402.5 vs 982 Around 45% better geekbench 3 single core score
Newer Jul, 2016 vs Jul, 2013 Release date over 3 years later
Slightly lower typical power consumption 8.13W vs 12.19W Around 35% lower typical power consumption
Slightly lower annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year vs 3.61 $/year Around 35% lower annual home energy cost
Slightly lower annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year vs 13.14 $/year Around 35% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of Intel Atom C2558

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom C2558

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 2.4 GHz vs 1.5 GHz 60% higher clock speed
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.4 GHz vs 1.5 GHz 60% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.4 GHz vs 1.5 GHz 60% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of J3455 vs Atom C2558

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

J3455
4,564.5
Atom C2558
3,118

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

J3455
1,402.5

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

J3455
1,010.65 MB/s
Atom C2558
396.2 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

J3455
2,153
Atom C2558
2,169

PassMark (Single Core)

J3455
785

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

J3455  vs
Atom C2558 
Clock speed 1.5 GHz 2.4 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes No

power consumption

TDP 10W 15W
Annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year 3.61 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 8.76 $/year 13.14 $/year
Performance per watt 8.3 pt/W 4.2 pt/W
Typical power consumption 8.13W 12.19W

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1

details

J3455  vs
Atom C2558 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
Manufacture process 14 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 1.5 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.5 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.5 GHz 2.4 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 500 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 250 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 12,800 MB/s 12,800 MB/s
Maximum memory size 8,192 MB 65,536 MB
Intel J3455
Report a correction
Intel Atom C2558
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus