Celeron J1800 vs Atom x5-Z8500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Atom x5-Z8500
2015
4 cores / 4 threads
0.78
+117%
Celeron J1800
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.36

Atom x5-Z8500 outperforms Celeron J1800 by a whopping 117% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Atom x5-Z8500 and Celeron J1800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking26413051
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Series5x Intel AtomIntel Celeron
Power efficiencyno data3.41
Architecture codenameCherry Trail (2015−2016)Bay Trail-D (2013)
Release date2 March 2015 (9 years ago)1 November 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$72

Detailed specifications

Atom x5-Z8500 and Celeron J1800 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.44 GHz2.41 GHz
Boost clock speed2.24 GHz2.58 GHz
L1 cacheno data112 KB
L2 cache2 MB1 MB
L3 cache0 KB1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography14 nm22 nm
Maximum core temperature90 °C105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Atom x5-Z8500 and Celeron J1800 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketUTFCBGA1380FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)no data10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom x5-Z8500 and Celeron J1800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
PAEno data36 Bit
FDIno data-
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Atom x5-Z8500 and Celeron J1800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Secure Boot+no data
Identity Protection+-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom x5-Z8500 and Celeron J1800 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom x5-Z8500 and Celeron J1800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size8 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail) (200 - 600 MHz)Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series
Max video memory8 GBno data
Quick Sync Video-+
Graphics max frequency600 MHz792 MHz
Execution Units12no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Atom x5-Z8500 and Celeron J1800 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported32

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Atom x5-Z8500 and Celeron J1800 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

Max resolution over HDMI 1.43840x2160no data
Max resolution over eDP2560x1600no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom x5-Z8500 and Celeron J1800.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes24
USB revision3.0no data
Number of USB ports3no 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.

Atom x5-Z8500 0.78
+117%
Celeron J1800 0.36

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.

Atom x5-Z8500 1236
+115%
Celeron J1800 574

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.78 0.36
Recency 2 March 2015 1 November 2013
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 14 nm 22 nm

Atom x5-Z8500 has a 116.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.

The Atom x5-Z8500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J1800 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Atom x5-Z8500 and Celeron J1800, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Atom x5-Z8500
Atom x5-Z8500
Intel Celeron J1800
Celeron J1800

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4 16 votes

Rate Atom x5-Z8500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 539 votes

Rate Celeron J1800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Atom x5-Z8500 or Celeron J1800, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.