Atom C3338 vs Celeron J4025

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron J4025
2019
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.93
+43.1%
Atom C3338
2017
2 cores / 2 threads, 8 Watt
0.65

Celeron J4025 outperforms Atom C3338 by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron J4025 and Atom C3338 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25262766
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.670.06
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataIntel Atom
Power efficiency8.806.83
Architecture codenameGemini Lake Refresh (2019)Goldmont (2016−2017)
Release date4 November 2019 (5 years ago)22 February 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107$27

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Celeron J4025 has 4350% better value for money than Atom C3338.

Detailed specifications

Celeron J4025 and Atom C3338 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 GHz1.5 GHz
Boost clock speed2.9 GHz2.2 GHz
Multiplierno data15
L1 cache56 KB (per core)112 KB
L2 cache4 MB (shared)4 MB
L3 cache4 MB4 MB
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size93 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C89 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron J4025 and Atom C3338 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCBGA1090FCBGA1310
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt8.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J4025 and Atom C3338. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
QuickAssistno data-
Speed Shift-no data
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Smart Response-no data
GPIO+no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data

Security technologies

Celeron J4025 and Atom C3338 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB++
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Key++
MPX+-
Identity Protection+-
SGXYes with Intel® ME-
OS Guard++
Anti-Theft-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J4025 and Atom C3338 are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J4025 and Atom C3338. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4: 1866
Maximum memory size8 GB128 GB
Max memory channels21
Maximum memory bandwidthno data14.936 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel UHD Graphics 600no data
Max video memory8 GBno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Graphics max frequency700 MHzno data
Execution Units12no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J4025 and Atom C3338 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
MIPI-DSI+no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron J4025 and Atom C3338 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution support+no data
Max resolution over HDMI 1.44096x2160@30Hzno data
Max resolution over eDP4096x2160@60Hzno data
Max resolution over DisplayPort4096x2160@60Hzno data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron J4025 and Atom C3338 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX12no data
OpenGL4.4no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J4025 and Atom C3338.

PCIe version2.03
PCI Express lanes610
USB revision2.0/3.03
Total number of SATA ports210
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports210
Number of USB ports88
Integrated LAN-4x2.5/1 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 J4025 0.93
+43.1%
Atom C3338 0.65

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 J4025 1477
+43.7%
Atom C3338 1028

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.93 0.65
Recency 4 November 2019 22 February 2017
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 8 Watt

Celeron J4025 has a 43.1% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

Atom C3338, on the other hand, has 25% lower power consumption.

The Celeron J4025 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom C3338 in performance tests.

Note that Celeron J4025 is a desktop processor while Atom C3338 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J4025 and Atom C3338, 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 J4025
Celeron J4025
Intel Atom C3338
Atom C3338

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.


3.2 127 votes

Rate Celeron J4025 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Atom C3338 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron J4025 or Atom C3338, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.