Celeron J4105 vs i5-9600K
Aggregate performance score
Core i5-9600K outperforms Celeron J4105 by a whopping 267% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-9600K and Celeron J4105 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1029 | 1996 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.78 | 2.04 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i5 | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 6.69 | 17.32 |
| Architecture codename | Coffee Lake-R (2018−2019) | Goldmont Plus (2017) |
| Release date | 19 October 2018 (6 years ago) | 11 December 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $262 | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
i5-9600K has 232% better value for money than Celeron J4105.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-9600K and Celeron J4105 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 6 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.6 GHz | 2.5 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 3.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 37 | 15 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 56 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 4 MB (shared) |
| L3 cache | 9 MB (shared) | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 149 mm2 | 93 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-9600K and Celeron J4105 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA1151 | FCBGA1090 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-9600K and Celeron J4105. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | - |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| TSX | + | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| SIPP | + | - |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
Security technologies
Core i5-9600K and Celeron J4105 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| MPX | + | + |
| Identity Protection | + | + |
| SGX | Yes with Intel® ME | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | + | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-9600K and Celeron J4105 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-9600K and Celeron J4105. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2666 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 128 GB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | Intel UHD Graphics 600 |
| Max video memory | 64 GB | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | + | + |
| Clear Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.15 GHz | 750 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-9600K and Celeron J4105 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| MIPI-DSI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core i5-9600K and Celeron J4105 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | + | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | 4096 x 2304@24Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over eDP | 4096 x 2304@60Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | 4096 x 2304@60Hz | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core i5-9600K and Celeron J4105 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-9600K and Celeron J4105.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 6 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 2 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 8 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.72 | 1.83 |
| Integrated graphics card | 3.09 | 0.87 |
| Recency | 19 October 2018 | 11 December 2017 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 4 |
| Threads | 6 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 10 Watt |
i5-9600K has a 267.2% higher aggregate performance score, 255.2% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 10 months, and 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.
Celeron J4105, on the other hand, has 850% lower power consumption.
The Core i5-9600K is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J4105 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-9600K and Celeron J4105, 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.
