Celeron N3060 vs J3355
Primary Details
Comparing Celeron J3355 and Celeron N3060 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2507 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | Intel Celeron |
| Architecture codename | Apollo Lake (2016) | Braswell (2015−2016) |
| Release date | 1 September 2016 (7 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | $107 |
| Current price | $55 (0.5x MSRP) | $243 (2.3x MSRP) |
Detailed Specifications
Celeron J3355 and Celeron N3060 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 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.48 GHz |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 90 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron J3355 and Celeron N3060 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 | 1 |
| Socket | FCBGA1296 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J3355 and Celeron N3060. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| SIPP | - | - |
| Smart Response | - | - |
| GPIO | + | + |
| Smart Connect | - | - |
| Status | Launched | Launched |
| HD Audio | + | + |
| RST | - | - |
Security technologies
Celeron J3355 and Celeron N3060 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Boot | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| Identity Protection | + | + |
| OS Guard | - | - |
| Anti-Theft | - | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J3355 and Celeron N3060 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
| VT-i | - | - |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J3355 and Celeron N3060. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3, DDR3, DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC memory support | - | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 500 | Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) |
| Max video memory | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | + | + |
| Clear Video | + | + |
| Clear Video HD | + | + |
| Graphics max frequency | 700 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Execution Units | 12 | 12 |
| InTru 3D | - | - |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J3355 and Celeron N3060 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 3 |
| eDP | + | + |
| DisplayPort | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| MIPI-DSI | + | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron J3355 and Celeron N3060 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | + | + |
| OpenGL | + | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J3355 and Celeron N3060.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 6 | 4 |
| USB revision | 2.0/3.0 | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | 8 | 5 |
| Integrated LAN | - | - |
| UART | + | + |
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
J3355 outperforms N3060 by 81% in Passmark.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
J3355 outperforms N3060 by 24% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
J3355 outperforms N3060 by 25% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.
Pros & Cons Summary
| Integrated graphics card | 0.75 | |
| Recency | 1 September 2016 | 1 April 2015 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 6 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Celeron J3355 and Celeron N3060. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J3355 and Celeron N3060, 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.
