Atom C3758 vs Celeron J3160

Place in the ranking	2603	1657
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.06	1.57
Market segment	Desktop processor	Server
Series	Intel Celeron	Intel Atom
Power efficiency	12.62	10.98
Architecture codename	Airmont (2016)	Goldmont (2016−2017)
Release date	15 January 2016 (8 years ago)	15 August 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$107	$193

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Atom C3758 has 2517% better value for money than Celeron J3160.

Detailed specifications

Celeron J3160 and Atom C3758 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)	8 (Octa-Core)
Threads	4	8
Base clock speed	1.6 GHz	2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed	2.24 GHz	2.2 GHz
Bus type	IDI	no data
Multiplier	no data	22
L1 cache	no data	448 KB
L2 cache	2 MB	16 MB
L3 cache	0 KB	16 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	14 nm
Maximum core temperature	90 °C	82 °C
64 bit support	+	+
Windows 11 compatibility	-	-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron J3160 and Atom C3758 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 (Uniprocessor)
Socket	FCBGA1170	FCBGA1310
Power consumption (TDP)	6 Watt	25 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J3160 and Atom C3758. 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	-	-
Thermal Monitoring	+	-
Smart Response	-	no data
GPIO	+	no data
Smart Connect	-	no data
HD Audio	+	no data
RST	-	no data

Security technologies

Celeron J3160 and Atom C3758 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT	-	no data
EDB	+	+
Secure Boot	+	+
Secure Key	+	+
Identity Protection	+	-
SGX	no data	-
OS Guard	-	+
Anti-Theft	-	no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J3160 and Atom C3758 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 J3160 and Atom C3758. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory types	DDR3L-1600	DDR4: 2400
Maximum memory size	8 GB	256 GB
Max memory channels	2	2
Maximum memory bandwidth	no data	34.134 GB/s
ECC memory support	-	+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Max video memory	8 GB	no data
Quick Sync Video	+	-
Clear Video	+	no data
Clear Video HD	+	no data
Graphics max frequency	700 MHz	no data
Execution Units	12	no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J3160 and Atom C3758 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported	3	no data
eDP	+	no data
DisplayPort	+	-
HDMI	+	-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron J3160 and Atom C3758 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX	+	no data
OpenGL	+	no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J3160 and Atom C3758.

PCIe version	2.0	3
PCI Express lanes	4	16
USB revision	2.0/3.0	3
Total number of SATA ports	5	16
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports	2	16
Number of USB ports	5	8
Integrated LAN	-	4x10/2.5/1 GBE
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.

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.

Celeron J3160 0.80

Atom C3758 2.90
+263%

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 J3160 1269

Atom C3758 4614
+264%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.80	2.90
Recency	15 January 2016	15 August 2017
Physical cores	4	8
Threads	4	8
Power consumption (TDP)	6 Watt	25 Watt

Celeron J3160 has 316.7% lower power consumption.

Atom C3758, on the other hand, has a 262.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The Atom C3758 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J3160 in performance tests.

Note that Celeron J3160 is a desktop processor while Atom C3758 is a server/workstation one.

Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J3160 and Atom C3758, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.