Atom E3825 vs Celeron J4105
Primary details
Comparing Celeron J4105 and Atom E3825 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1990 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.22 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | Atom |
| Power efficiency | 17.33 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Goldmont Plus (2017) | Bay Trail-I (2013) |
| Release date | 11 December 2017 (6 years ago) | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | $73 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron J4105 and Atom E3825 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 1.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 1.33 GHz |
| Multiplier | 15 | no data |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 93 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron J4105 and Atom E3825 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 |
| Socket | FCBGA1090 | Intel BGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J4105 and Atom E3825. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Smart Response | - | no data |
| GPIO | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron J4105 and Atom E3825 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| MPX | + | - |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| SGX | Yes with Intel® ME | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J4105 and Atom E3825 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J4105 and Atom E3825. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 38.397 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel UHD Graphics 600 | Intel HD Graphics |
| Max video memory | 8 GB | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 750 MHz | no data |
| Execution Units | 12 | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J4105 and Atom E3825 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| MIPI-DSI | + | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron J4105 and Atom E3825 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | + | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron J4105 and Atom E3825 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | 12 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J4105 and Atom E3825.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 6 | no data |
| USB revision | 2.0/3.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 2 | no data |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 8 | no data |
| 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Integrated graphics card | 0.87 | 0.77 |
| Recency | 11 December 2017 | 8 October 2013 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 6 Watt |
Celeron J4105 has 13% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.
Atom E3825, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron J4105 and Atom E3825. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron J4105 is a desktop processor while Atom E3825 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J4105 and Atom E3825, 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.
