Processor 300 vs Celeron J3060
Primary details
Comparing Celeron J3060 and Processor 300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 1302 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Celeron | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 9.28 |
| Architecture codename | Airmont (2016) | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 15 January 2016 (8 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | $82 |
Detailed specifications
Celeron J3060 and Processor 300 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.48 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Bus type | IDI | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | no data | 163 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron J3060 and Processor 300 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 | FCBGA1170 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 46 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J3060 and Processor 300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Smart Response | - | no data |
| GPIO | + | no data |
| Smart Connect | - | no data |
| HD Audio | + | no data |
| RST | - | no data |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Celeron J3060 and Processor 300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Boot | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| OS Guard | - | + |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J3060 and Processor 300 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| VT-i | - | no data |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J3060 and Processor 300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3L-1600 | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 76.8 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics 710 |
| Max video memory | 8 GB | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | + |
| Clear Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video HD | + | + |
| Graphics max frequency | 700 MHz | 1.45 GHz |
| Execution Units | 12 | 16 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J3060 and Processor 300 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 4 |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron J3060 and Processor 300 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2160 @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 5120 x 3200 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron J3060 and Processor 300 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | + | 12 |
| OpenGL | + | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J3060 and Processor 300.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | 16 |
| USB revision | 2.0/3.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 5 | no data |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | no data |
| Integrated LAN | - | no data |
| UART | + | 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.
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
| Recency | 15 January 2016 | 8 January 2024 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 46 Watt |
Celeron J3060 has 666.7% lower power consumption.
Processor 300, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, and 100% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Celeron J3060 and Processor 300. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J3060 and Processor 300, 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.
