Celeron N2920 vs J4025

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron J4025
2019
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.93
+55%
Celeron N2920
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.60

Celeron J4025 outperforms Celeron N2920 by an impressive 55% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron J4025 and Celeron N2920 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25262808
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.68no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency8.818.12
Architecture codenameGemini Lake Refresh (2019)Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
Release date4 November 2019 (5 years ago)1 December 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107$107

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron J4025 and Celeron N2920 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed2 GHz1.86 GHz
Boost clock speed2.9 GHz2 GHz
L1 cache56 KB (per core)56K (per core)
L2 cache4 MB (shared)512K (per core)
L3 cache4 MB0 KB
Chip lithography14 nm22 nm
Die size93 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron J4025 and Celeron N2920 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
SocketFCBGA1090FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt7.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J4025 and Celeron N2920. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Security technologies

Celeron J4025 and Celeron N2920 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J4025 and Celeron N2920 are enumerated here.

VT-d+-
VT-x++
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J4025 and Celeron N2920. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory size8 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel UHD Graphics 600Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series
Max video memory8 GBno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Graphics max frequency700 MHz844 MHz
Execution Units12no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J4025 and Celeron N2920 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported32
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
MIPI-DSI+no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron J4025 and Celeron N2920 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 Celeron N2920 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX12no data
OpenGL4.4no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J4025 and Celeron N2920.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes64
USB revision2.0/3.03.0 and 2.0
Total number of SATA ports22
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports2no data
Number of USB ports85
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.


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
+55%
Celeron N2920 0.60

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
+55.5%
Celeron N2920 950

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Celeron J4025 2337
+127%
Celeron N2920 1030

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Celeron J4025 4556
+29.1%
Celeron N2920 3530

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Celeron J4025 2575
+38.4%
Celeron N2920 1861

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Celeron J4025 31.07
+3%
Celeron N2920 31.99

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Celeron J4025 2
+26.6%
Celeron N2920 1

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Celeron J4025 148
+24.9%
Celeron N2920 119

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.

Celeron J4025 77
+137%
Celeron N2920 33

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark 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 loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Celeron J4025 0.96
+153%
Celeron N2920 0.38

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Celeron J4025 1
+376%
Celeron N2920 0.2

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Celeron J4025 783
Celeron N2920 1728
+121%

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Celeron J4025 11
+26.8%
Celeron N2920 8

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Celeron J4025 53
+26.2%
Celeron N2920 42

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.93 0.60
Integrated graphics card 0.87 0.77
Recency 4 November 2019 1 December 2013
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 7 Watt

Celeron J4025 has a 55% higher aggregate performance score, 13% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron N2920, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 42.9% lower power consumption.

The Celeron J4025 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2920 in performance tests.

Note that Celeron J4025 is a desktop processor while Celeron N2920 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J4025 and Celeron N2920, 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 Celeron N2920
Celeron N2920

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
2.5 32 votes

Rate Celeron N2920 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron J4025 or Celeron N2920, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.