Celeron J1800 vs E3400

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron E3400 and Celeron J1800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2830not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.72no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency0.80no data
Architecture codenameWolfdale (2008−2010)Bay Trail-D (2013)
Release date17 January 2010 (14 years ago)1 November 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$76$72

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron E3400 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.6 GHz2.41 GHz
Boost clock speed2.6 GHz2.58 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)112 KB
L2 cache1 MB (shared)1 MB
L3 cache0 KB1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography45 nm22 nm
Die size82 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature74 °C105 °C
Number of transistors228 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.3625Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron E3400 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 configuration11
SocketLGA775FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3400 and Celeron J1800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
PAEno data36 Bit
FDIno data-
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Celeron E3400 and Celeron J1800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB++
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E3400 and Celeron J1800 are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3400 and Celeron J1800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1, DDR2, DDR3DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series
Quick Sync Video-+
Graphics max frequencyno data792 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron E3400 and Celeron J1800 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3400 and Celeron J1800.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanesno data4

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.



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.

Celeron E3400 869
+51.7%
Celeron J1800 573

Pros & cons summary


Recency 17 January 2010 1 November 2013
Chip lithography 45 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 10 Watt

Celeron J1800 has an age advantage of 3 years, a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 550% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Celeron E3400 and Celeron J1800. We've got no test results to judge.

Note that Celeron E3400 is a desktop processor while Celeron J1800 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3400 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 Celeron E3400
Celeron E3400
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.


3.2 268 votes

Rate Celeron E3400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 534 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 Celeron E3400 or Celeron J1800, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.