E-350 vs Celeron J4025

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron J4025
2019
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.93
+244%

Celeron J4025 outperforms E-350 by a whopping 244% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron J4025 and E-350 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking25263147
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.67no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD E-Series
Power efficiency8.801.42
Architecture codenameGemini Lake Refresh (2019)Zacate (2011−2013)
Release date4 November 2019 (5 years ago)4 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron J4025 and E-350 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 GHzno data
Boost clock speed2.9 GHz1.6 GHz
L1 cache56 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache4 MB (shared)512K (per core)
L3 cacheno data0 KB
Chip lithography14 nm40 nm
Die size93 mm275 mm2
Maximum core temperature105 °C90 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron J4025 and E-350 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
SocketIntel BGA 1090FT1
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt18 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J4025 and E-350. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataMMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A
AES-NI+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J4025 and E-350 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J4025 and E-350. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
Intel UHD Graphics 600 (250 - 700 MHz)AMD Radeon HD 6310

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J4025 and E-350.

PCIe version2.0no data
PCI Express lanes6no 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
+244%
E-350 0.27

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
+250%
E-350 422

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Celeron J4025 329
+210%
E-350 106

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Celeron J4025 539
+196%
E-350 182

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
+123%
E-350 1049

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
+127%
E-350 2005

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
+152%
E-350 1021

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
+121%
E-350 68.8

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
+197%
E-350 1

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.93 0.27
Integrated graphics card 0.87 0.32
Recency 4 November 2019 4 January 2011
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 18 Watt

Celeron J4025 has a 244.4% higher aggregate performance score, 171.9% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 8 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.

The Celeron J4025 is our recommended choice as it beats the E-350 in performance tests.

Note that Celeron J4025 is a desktop processor while E-350 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J4025 and E-350, 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
AMD E-350
E-350

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.


3.2 129 votes

Rate Celeron J4025 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 396 votes

Rate E-350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron J4025 or E-350, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.