Celeron G4900 vs E1-1200
Aggregate performance score
Celeron G4900 outperforms E1-1200 by a whopping 529% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing E1-1200 and Celeron G4900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3178 | 2153 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.95 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD E-Series | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 1.26 | 2.80 |
| Architecture codename | Zacate (2011−2013) | Coffee Lake (2017−2019) |
| Release date | 6 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 3 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $42 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
E1-1200 and Celeron G4900 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.4 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 31 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 75 mm2 | 126 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 100 °C | 72 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on E1-1200 and Celeron G4900 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FT1 | 1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 51 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E1-1200 and Celeron G4900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| PowerNow | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E1-1200 and Celeron G4900 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 E1-1200 and Celeron G4900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon HD 7310 | Intel UHD Graphics 610 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E1-1200 and Celeron G4900.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.24 | 1.51 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.33 | 1.89 |
| Recency | 6 June 2012 | 3 April 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 51 Watt |
E1-1200 has 183.3% lower power consumption.
Celeron G4900, on the other hand, has a 529.2% higher aggregate performance score, 472.7% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Celeron G4900 is our recommended choice as it beats the E1-1200 in performance tests.
Be aware that E1-1200 is a notebook processor while Celeron G4900 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between E1-1200 and Celeron G4900, 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.
