Intel Celeron N3150 vs Intel Celeron J1900
|
|
|
|
|
Intel Celeron N3150 vs Intel Celeron J1900
Comparison of the technical characteristics between the processors, with the Intel Celeron N3150 on one side and the Intel Celeron J1900 on the other side. The first is dedicated to the entry-level notebook sector, It has 4 cores, 4 threads, a maximum frequency of 2,1GHz. The second is used on the mini desktop segment, it has a total of 4 cores, 4 threads, its turbo frequency is set to 2,4 GHz. The following table also compares the lithography, the number of transistors (if indicated), the amount of cache memory, the maximum RAM memory capacity, the type of memory accepted, the release date, the maximum number of PCIe lanes, the values obtained in Geekbench 4 and Cinebench R15.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Specifications:
| Processor | Intel Celeron N3150 | Intel Celeron J1900 | ||||||
| Market (main) | Entry-level notebook | Mini desktop | ||||||
| ISA | x86-64 (64 bit) | x86-64 (64 bit) | ||||||
| Microarchitecture | Airmont | Silvermont | ||||||
| Core name | Braswell | Bay Trail-D | ||||||
| Family | Celeron N3000 | Celeron 1000 | ||||||
| Part number(s), S-Spec | FH8066501715913, FH8066501715924, SR29F, SR2A8 |
FH8065301615009, FH8065301615010, QG9B, SR1SC, SR1UT |
||||||
| Release date | Q1 2015 | Q4 2013 | ||||||
| Lithography | 14 nm | 22 nm | ||||||
| Cores | 4 | 4 | ||||||
| Threads | 4 | 4 | ||||||
| Base frequency | 1,6 GHz | 2,0 GHz | ||||||
| Turbo frequency | 2,1 GHz | 2,4 GHz | ||||||
| Cache memory | 2 MB | 2 MB | ||||||
| Max memory capacity | 8 GB | 8 GB | ||||||
| Memory types | DDR3L-1600 | DDR3L 1333 | ||||||
| Max # of memory channels | 2 | 2 | ||||||
| Max memory bandwidth | 25,6 GB/s | 21,3 GB/s | ||||||
| Max PCIe lanes | 4 | 4 | ||||||
| TDP | 6 W | 10 W | ||||||
| GPU integrated graphics | Intel HD Graphics (Braswell) | Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) | ||||||
| GPU execution units | 12 | 4 | ||||||
| GPU shading units | 96 | 32 | ||||||
| GPU base clock | 320 MHz | 688 MHz | ||||||
| GPU boost clock | 640 MHz | 854 MHz | ||||||
| GPU FP32 floating point | 96 GFLOPS | 42,69 GFLOPS | ||||||
| Socket | BGA1170 | BGA1170 | ||||||
| Compatible motherboard | — | Socket
BGA 1170 Motherboard |
||||||
| Maximum temperature | 90°C | 105°C | ||||||
| CPU-Z single thread | 33 | 90 | ||||||
| CPU-Z multi thread | 136 | 357 | ||||||
| Cinebench R15 single thread | 30 | 40 | ||||||
| Cinebench R15 multi-thread | 122 | 145 | ||||||
| Cinebench R20 single thread | 71 | 80 | ||||||
| Cinebench R20 multi-thread | 189 | 280 | ||||||
| PassMark single thread | 563 | 641 | ||||||
| PassMark CPU Mark | 1. 185 |
1.123 | ||||||
| (Windows 64-bit) Geekbench 4 single core |
980 | 1.111 | ||||||
| (Windows 64-bit) Geekbench 4 multi-core |
2.734 | 3.007 | ||||||
| (Windows) Geekbench 5 single core |
200 | 254 | ||||||
| (Windows) Geekbench 5 multi-core |
664 | 658 | ||||||
| (SGEMM) GFLOPS performance |
23,38 GFLOPS | 25,12 GFLOPS | ||||||
| (Multi-core / watt performance) Performance / watt ratio |
456 pts / W | 301 pts / W | ||||||
| Amazon | ||||||||
| eBay |
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two processors.
Suggested PSU: We assume that we have An ATX computer case, a high end graphics card, 16GB RAM, a 512GB SSD, a 1TB HDD hard drive, a Blu-Ray drive. We will have to rely on a more powerful power supply if we want to have several graphics cards, several monitors, more memory, etc.
Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.
We see that the two processors have an equivalent number of cores, the turbo frequency of Intel Celeron J1900 is bigger, that the PDT of Intel Celeron N3150 is lower. The Intel Celeron N3150 was designed earlier.
Performances :
Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench 4.
| CPU-Z — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
| Intel Celeron J1900 |
90 357 |
| Intel Celeron N3150 |
33 136 |
In single core, the difference is 173%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 163%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
CPU-Z is a system information software that provides the name of the processor, its model number, the codename, the cache levels, the package, the process. It can also gives data about the mainboard, the memory. It makes real time measurement, with finally a benchmark for the single thread, as well as for the multi thread.
| Cinebench R15 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
| Intel Celeron J1900 |
40 145 |
| Intel Celeron N3150 |
30 122 |
In single core, the difference is 33%.
In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 19%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R15 evaluates the performance of CPU calculations by restoring a photorealistic 3D scene. The scene has 2,000 objects, 300,000 polygons, uses sharp and fuzzy reflections, bright areas, shadows, procedural shaders, antialiasing, and so on. The faster the rendering of the scene is created, the more powerful the PC is, with a high number of points.
| Cinebench R20 — Multi-thread & single thread score | |
|---|---|
| Intel Celeron J1900 |
80 280 |
| Intel Celeron N3150 |
71 189 |
In single core, the difference is 13%.
In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 48%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Cinebench R20 is a multi-platform test software which allows to evaluate the hardware capacities of a device such as a computer, a tablet, a server. This version of Cinebench takes into account recent developments in processors with multiple cores and the latest improvements in rendering techniques. The evaluation is ultimately even more relevant.
| PassMark — CPU Mark & single thread | |
|---|---|
| Intel Celeron N3150 |
563 1.185 |
| Intel Celeron J1900 |
641 1.123 |
In single core, the difference is -12%.
In multi-core, the differential gap is 6%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
PassMark is a benchmarking software that performs several performance tests including prime numbers, integers, floating point, compression, physics, extended instructions, encoding, sorting. The higher the score is, the higher is the device capacity.
On Windows 64-bit:
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Windows 64-bit | |
|---|---|
| Intel Celeron J1900 |
1.111 3.007 |
| Intel Celeron N3150 |
980 2.734 |
In single core, the difference is 13%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 10%.
On Linux 64-bit:
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Linux 64-bit | |
|---|---|
| Intel Celeron J1900 |
1.061 2.737 |
| Intel Celeron N3150 |
954 2.696 |
In single core, the difference is 11%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 2%.
On Android 64-bit:
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-core & single core score — Android 64-bit | |
|---|---|
| Intel Celeron J1900 |
1.230 3.203 |
| Intel Celeron N3150 |
1.034 3.043 |
In single core, the difference is 19%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 5%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 4 is a complete benchmark platform with several types of tests, including data compression, images, AES encryption, SQL encoding, HTML, PDF file rendering, matrix computation, Fast Fourier Transform, 3D object simulation, photo editing, memory testing. This allows us to better visualize the respective power of these devices. For each result, we took an average of 250 values on the famous benchmark software.
On Windows:
| Geekbench 5 — Multi-core & single core score — Windows | |
|---|---|
| Intel Celeron N3150 |
200 664 |
| Intel Celeron J1900 |
254 658 |
In single core, the difference is -21%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 1%.
On Linux:
| Geekbench 5 — Multi-core & single core score — Linux | |
|---|---|
| Intel Celeron N3150 |
211 723 |
| Intel Celeron J1900 |
222 679 |
In single core, the difference is -5%. In multi-core, the differential gap is 6%.
On Android:
| Geekbench 5 — Multi-core & single core score — Android | |
|---|---|
| Intel Celeron J1900 |
218 760 |
| Intel Celeron N3150 |
202 690 |
In single core, the difference is 8%. In multi-core, the difference in terms of gap is 10%.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these processors, you may get different results.
Geekbench 5 is a software for measuring the performance of a computer system, for fixed devices, mobile devices, servers. This platform makes it possible to better compare the power of the CPU, the computing power and to compare it with similar or totally different systems. Geekbench 5 includes new workloads that represent work tasks and applications that we can find in reality.
Equivalence:
Intel Celeron N3150 AMD equivalentIntel Celeron J1900 AMD equivalent
Intel Celeron N3150 vs Intel Celeron J1900
Comparative analysis of Intel Celeron N3150 and Intel Celeron J1900 processors for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Performance, Memory, Graphics, Graphics interfaces, Graphics API support, Compatibility, Peripherals, Security & Reliability, Advanced Technologies, Virtualization.
Benchmark processor performance analysis: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, CompuBench 1.
5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps).
Intel Celeron N3150
Buy on Amazon
vs
Intel Celeron J1900
Buy on Amazon
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel Celeron N3150
- CPU is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 5 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor: 14 nm vs 22 nm
- Around 67% lower typical power consumption: 6 Watt vs 10 Watt
- Around 5% better performance in PassMark — CPU mark: 1204 vs 1143
- Around 54% better performance in CompuBench 1.
5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s): 4.724 vs 3.068 - 3.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.484 vs 0.139
- 10x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s): 5.104 vs 0.508
- Around 46% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames): 1471 vs 1007
- Around 46% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps): 1471 vs 1007
| Launch date | 1 April 2015 vs 1 November 2013 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 22 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 6 Watt vs 10 Watt |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 1204 vs 1143 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 4. 724 vs 3.068 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.484 vs 0.139 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 5.104 vs 0.508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 1471 vs 1007 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 1471 vs 1007 |
Reasons to consider the Intel Celeron J1900
- Around 16% higher clock speed: 2.42 GHz vs 2.08 GHz
- Around 17% higher maximum core temperature: 105°C vs 90°C
- Around 13% better performance in PassMark — Single thread mark: 651 vs 574
- Around 9% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Single Core: 210 vs 192
- Around 5% better performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core: 686 vs 655
- Around 38% better performance in CompuBench 1.
5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 11.336 vs 8.191 - Around 27% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 1.753 vs 1.375
| Maximum frequency | 2.42 GHz vs 2.08 GHz |
| Maximum core temperature | 105°C vs 90°C |
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 651 vs 574 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 210 vs 192 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 686 vs 655 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 11.336 vs 8.191 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
1.753 vs 1.375 |
Compare benchmarks
CPU 1: Intel Celeron N3150
CPU 2: Intel Celeron J1900
| PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
|
|||
| PassMark — CPU mark |
|
|
|||
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core |
|
|
|||
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core |
|
|
|||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
|||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
|||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
|||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
|||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
|||
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
|||
GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel Celeron N3150 | Intel Celeron J1900 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 574 | 651 |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 1204 | 1143 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 192 | 210 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 655 | 686 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
4.724 | 3.068 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 8.191 | 11.336 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.484 | 0.139 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 5.104 | 0.508 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1.375 | 1.753 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 501 | |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) |
875 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 1471 | 1007 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 501 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 875 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 1471 | 1007 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel Celeron N3150 | Intel Celeron J1900 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture codename | Braswell | Bay Trail |
| Launch date | 1 April 2015 | 1 November 2013 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | $82 |
| Place in performance rating | 2197 | 2569 |
| Processor Number | N3150 | J1900 |
| Series | Intel® Celeron® Processor N Series | Intel® Celeron® Processor J Series |
| Status | Discontinued | Launched |
| Vertical segment | Mobile | Desktop |
| 64 bit support | ||
| Base frequency | 1. 60 GHz |
2.00 GHz |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 22 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 90°C | 105°C |
| Maximum frequency | 2.08 GHz | 2.42 GHz |
| Number of cores | 4 | 4 |
| Number of threads | 4 | 4 |
| L1 cache | 224 KB | |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Supported memory types | DDR3L-1600 | DDR3L 1333 |
| Execution Units | 12 | |
| Graphics base frequency | 320 MHz | 688 MHz |
| Graphics max frequency | 640 MHz | 854 MHz |
| Intel® Clear Video HD technology | ||
| Intel® Clear Video technology | ||
| Intel® InTru™ 3D technology | ||
| Intel® Quick Sync Video | ||
| Max video memory | 8 GB | |
| Processor graphics | Intel HD Graphics | Intel HD Graphics |
| Graphics max dynamic frequency | 854 MHz | |
| Intel® Flexible Display Interface (Intel® FDI) | ||
| DisplayPort | ||
| eDP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 2 |
| Wireless Display (WiDi) support | ||
| DirectX | Yes | |
| OpenGL | Yes | |
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Max number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Package Size | 25mm x 27mm | 25mm X 27mm |
| Scenario Design Power (SDP) | 4 W | |
| Sockets supported | FCBGA1170 | FCBGA1170 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 6 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Integrated LAN | ||
| Max number of PCIe lanes | 4 | 4 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | |
| PCI Express revision | 2. 0 |
2.0 |
| PCIe configurations | 1×4/2×2/1×2 + 2×1/4×1 | X4, X2, X1 |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | |
| UART | ||
| USB revision | 2.0/3.0 | |
| Anti-Theft technology | ||
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
| Intel® Identity Protection technology | ||
| Intel® OS Guard | ||
| Intel® Secure Key technology | ||
| Intel® Trusted Execution technology (TXT) | ||
| Secure Boot | ||
| 4G WiMAX Wireless | ||
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology | ||
| General-Purpose Input/Output (GPIO) | ||
| HD Audio | ||
| Idle States | ||
| Intel 64 | ||
| Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading technology | ||
| Intel® Rapid Storage technology (RST) | ||
| Intel® Smart Response technology | ||
| Intel® Stable Image Platform Program (SIPP) | ||
| Intel® Turbo Boost technology | ||
| Intel® vPro™ Platform Eligibility | ||
| Smart Connect | ||
| Thermal Monitoring | ||
| Flexible Display interface (FDI) | ||
| Intel® Optane™ Memory Supported | ||
| Physical Address Extensions (PAE) | 36-bit | |
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Itanium (VT-i) | ||
| Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT) |
Comparison of Intel Celeron N3150 and Intel Celeron J1900
Comparative analysis of the Intel Celeron N3150 and Intel Celeron J1900 processors by all known characteristics in the categories: General Information, Performance, Memory, Graphics, Graphical Interfaces, Graphics API Support, Compatibility, Peripherals, Security and Reliability, Technology, Virtualization.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation ( Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames ), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps).
nine0003
Intel Celeron N3150
versus
Intel Celeron J1900
Benefits
Reasons to choose Intel Celeron N3150
- Newer processor, release dates difference 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
- Approximately 67% less power consumption: 6 Watt vs 10 Watt
- About 5% more performance in PassMark — CPU mark benchmark: 1204 vs 1143
- About 54% more performance in CompuBench 1.
5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) benchmark: 4.724 vs 3.068 - CompuBench.5 benchmark Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 10 times more: 0.484 vs 0.139
- CompuBench 1.5 performance Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 10 times more: 5.104 vs 0.508
- About 46% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) benchmark: 1471 vs 1007
- About 46% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) benchmark: 1471 vs 1007
powerful but with lower power consumption: 14 nm vs 22 nm
| 9 | 9 Release date | 1 April 2015 vs 1 November 2013 |
| Process | 14 nm vs 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt vs 10 Watt |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 1204 vs 1143 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 4. 724 vs 3.068 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.484 vs 0.139 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 5.104 vs 0.508 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 1471 vs 1007 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) |
Reasons to choose Intel Celeron J1900
- About 16% more clock speed: 2.42 GHz vs 2.08 GHz
- About 17% more maximum core temperature: 105°C vs 90°C Single thread mark about 13% more: 651 vs 574
- Geekbench 4 performance — Single Core about 9% more: 210 vs 192
- About 5% more performance in Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core benchmark: 686 vs 655
- About 38% more performance in CompuBench 1.
5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 11.336 vs 8.191 - Benchmark performance CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) about 27% more: 1.753 vs 1.375
| Max frequency | 2.42 GHz vs 2.08 GHz |
| Maximum core temperature | 105°C vs 90°C |
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 651 vs 574 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 210 vs 192 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 686 vs 655 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 11.336 vs 8.191 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
1.753 vs 1.375 |
Benchmark comparison
nine0163 CPU 1: Intel Celeron N3150
CPU 2: Intel Celeron J1900
| PassMark — Single thread mark |
|
||||
| PassMark — CPU mark |
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core |
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core |
|
nine0042 | |||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
|||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | nine0038 | ||||
| CPU 1 | |||||
| CPU 2 |
5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | CPU 1 |
| CPU 2 |
nine0041
| CPU 1 |
| CPU 2 |
nine0045
| CPU 1 |
| CPU 2 |
0 — T-Rex (Fps) | CPU 1 |
| CPU 2 |
| Name | Intel Celeron N3150 | Intel Celeron J1900 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — Single thread mark | 651 | |
| PassMark — CPU mark | 1204 | 1143 |
| Geekbench 4 — Single Core | 192 | 210 |
| Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core | 686 | |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
4.724 | 3.068 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 8.191 | 11.336 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.484 | 0.139 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 5.104 | 0.508 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 1.753 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 501 | |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) |
875 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 1007 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 501 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 875 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 1007 |
Performance comparison
| Intel Celeron N3150 | Intel Celeron J1900 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture name | Braswell | Bay Trail |
| Issue date | April 1, 2015 | November 1, 2013 |
| Price at first issue date | $107 | $82 |
| Place in the ranking | 2197 | 2569 |
| Processor Number | N3150 | J1900 |
| Series | Intel® Celeron® Processor N Series | Intel® Celeron® Processor J Series |
| Status | Discontinued | |
| Applicability | Mobile | Desktop |
| Support 64 bit | ||
| Base frequency | 1. |
|
| Level 2 cache | 2MB | 2MB |
| Process | 14nm | 22 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 90°C | |
| Maximum frequency | 2.08 GHz | 2.42 GHz |
| Number of cores | 4 | 4 |
| Number of threads | 4 | |
| Level 1 cache | 224KB | |
| Maximum number of memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory size | 8GB | |
| Supported memory types | DDR3L-1600 | DDR3L 1333 |
| Number of execution units | 12 | |
| Graphics base frequency | 320MHz | |
| Maximum GPU clock | 640MHz | 854MHz |
| Intel® Clear Video HD Technology | ||
| Intel® Clear Video Technology | ||
| Intel® InTru™ 3D Technology | ||
| Intel® Quick Sync Video | ||
| Video memory size | ||
| Integrated graphics | Intel HD Graphics | Intel HD Graphics |
| Graphics max dynamic frequency | 854MHz | |
| Intel® Flexible Display Interface (Intel® FDI) | ||
| DisplayPort | ||
| eDP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum number of monitors supported | 3 | 2 |
| WiDi support | ||
| DirectX | Yes | |
| OpenGL | Yes | |
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Maximum number of processors in configuration | 1 | |
| Package Size | 25mm x 27mm | 25mm X 27mm |
| Scenario Design Power (SDP) | 4W | |
| Supported sockets | FCBGA1170 | |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Integrated LAN | ||
| Number of PCI Express lanes | 4 | |
| Maximum number of SATA 6 Gb/s ports | 2 | |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | |
| PCI Express revision | 2. |
2.0 |
| PCIe configurations | 1×4/2×2/1×2 + 2×1/4×1 | X4, X2, X1 |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | |
| UART | ||
| USB revision | 2.0/3.0 | |
| Anti-Theft Technology | ||
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
| Intel® Identity Protection Technology | ||
| Intel® OS Guard | ||
| Intel® Secure Key Technology | ||
| Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) | ||
| Secure Boot | ||
| 4G WiMAX Wireless | nine0045 | |
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology | ||
| General Purpose Input/Output (GPIO) | ||
| HD Audio | nine0045 | |
| Idle States | ||
| Intel 64 | ||
| Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology | ||
| Intel® Rapid Storage Technology (RST) | ||
| Intel® Smart Response Technology | ||
| Intel® Stable Image Platform Program (SIPP) | ||
| Intel® Turbo Boost Technology | ||
| Intel® vPro™ Platform Eligibility | ||
| Smart Connect | ||
| Thermal Monitoring | ||
| Flexible Display interface (FDI) | ||
| Intel® Optane™ Memory Supported | ||
| Physical Address Extensions (PAE) | 36-bit | |
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Itanium (VT-i) | nine0045 | |
| Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT) |
Intel Celeron N3150 vs.
Intel Celeron J1900
Intel Celeron N3150
Intel Celeron N3150 runs with 4 and 4 CPU threads It runs at 2.08 GHz base 2.08 GHz all cores while TDP is set to 6 W .CPU connects to BGA 1170 CPU socket This version includes 2.00 MB of L3 cache on a single die, supports 2 to support DDR3L-1600 SO-DIMM RAM, and supports 2.0 PCIe Gen 4 . Tjunction is kept below — degrees C. In particular, Braswell Architecture is advanced beyond 14 nm and supports VT-x, VT-x EPT . The product was launched Q2/2015
Intel Celeron J1900
Intel Celeron J1900 runs with 4 and 4 CPU threads It runs at 2.42 GHz base 2.42 GHz all cores while TDP is set to 10 W .The processor connects to BGA 1170 CPU socket This version includes 2.00 MB L3 cache on a single die, supports 2 to support RAM, and supports 2.0 PCIe Gen 4. Tjunction is kept below — degrees C. In particular, the Bay Trail Architecture is advanced beyond 22 nm and supports VT-x, VT-x EPT . The product was launched Q4/2013
Intel Celeron N3150
Intel Celeron J1900
Intel HD Graphics 400
Intel HD Graphics (Baytrail GT1)
nine0045
nine0041 ECC
Show more details
Show more details
Cinebench R20 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor to Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account. nine0003
Cinebench R20 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R20 is the successor to Cinebench R15 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Cinebench R15 (Single-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on the Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account. nine0003
Cinebench R15 (Multi-Core)
Cinebench R15 is the successor to Cinebench 11.5 and is also based on Cinema 4 Suite. Cinema 4 is software used all over the world to create 3D forms. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a memory-intensive, cross-platform benchmark. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account. nine0003
Geekbench 5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 5 is a memory-intensive, cross-platform benchmark. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading.
iGPU — FP32 Performance (Single-precision GFLOPS)
Theoretical processing performance of the processor’s internal graphics unit with simple precision (32 bits) in GFLOPS. GFLOPS specifies how many billions of floating point operations the iGPU can perform per second. nine0003
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Single-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross-platform benchmark that is memory intensive. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Geekbench 3, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Geekbench 3 is a cross-platform benchmark that is memory intensive. A fast memory will greatly push the result. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading. nine0003
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Single-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular for creating shapes and other things in 3D. The single-core test uses only one CPU core, the number of cores or hyper-threading capability is not taken into account.
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (Multi-Core)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular for creating shapes and other 3D. The multi-core test uses all the CPU cores and has a big advantage of hyper-threading. nine0003
Cinebench R11.5, 64bit (iGPU, OpenGL)
Cinebench 11.5 is based on the Cinema 4D Suite, a software that is popular for creating shapes and other things in 3D. The iGPU test uses the CPU’s internal graphics unit to execute OpenGL commands.
Estimated results for PassMark CPU Mark
Some of the processors listed below have been tested with CPU-Comparison.