Celeron J3455E vs Atom C3558
Aggregate performance score
Atom C3558 outperforms Celeron J3455E by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Atom C3558 and Celeron J3455E processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2121 | 2216 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.47 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Atom | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.04 | 13.09 |
| Architecture codename | Goldmont (2016−2017) | no data |
| Release date | 15 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 1 July 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Atom C3558 and Celeron J3455E basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | no data |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Multiplier | 22 | no data |
| L1 cache | 224 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 2 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 83 °C | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Atom C3558 and Celeron J3455E compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | FCBGA1310 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 16 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom C3558 and Celeron J3455E. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| QuickAssist | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
Security technologies
Atom C3558 and Celeron J3455E technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Boot | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | - | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom C3558 and Celeron J3455E are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| VT-i | no data | - |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom C3558 and Celeron J3455E. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4: 2133 | DDR3L/LPDDR3 up to 1866 MT/s; LPDDR4 up to 2400 MT/s |
| Maximum memory size | 256 GB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 29.871 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 500 |
| Max video memory | no data | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 750 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Atom C3558 and Celeron J3455E integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| MIPI-DSI | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Atom C3558 and Celeron J3455E integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | + |
| OpenGL | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom C3558 and Celeron J3455E.
| PCIe version | 3 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 12 | 6 |
| USB revision | 3 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 12 | no data |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 12 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 8 | no data |
| Integrated LAN | 2x10/2.5/1 GBE + 2x2.5/1 GBE | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.58 | 1.43 |
| Recency | 15 August 2017 | 1 July 2019 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 16 Watt | 10 Watt |
Atom C3558 has a 10.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron J3455E, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 60% lower power consumption.
The Atom C3558 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J3455E in performance tests.
Be aware that Atom C3558 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron J3455E is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom C3558 and Celeron J3455E, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
