Celeron J1750 vs E2-3200
Aggregate performance score
E2-3200 outperforms Celeron J1750 by an impressive 65% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing E2-3200 and Celeron J1750 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2785 | 3019 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 0.89 | 3.50 |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Bay Trail-D (2013) |
| Release date | 7 September 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 September 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $72 |
Detailed specifications
E2-3200 and Celeron J1750 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 | 2.4 GHz | 2.41 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.41 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 112 KB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 1 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on E2-3200 and Celeron J1750 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 |
| Socket | FM1 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-3200 and Celeron J1750. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
| FDI | no data | - |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
E2-3200 and Celeron J1750 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-3200 and Celeron J1750 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 E2-3200 and Celeron J1750. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Radeon HD 6370D | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 750 MHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of E2-3200 and Celeron J1750 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-3200 and Celeron J1750.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.61 | 0.37 |
| Recency | 7 September 2011 | 1 September 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 10 Watt |
E2-3200 has a 64.9% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron J1750, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 550% lower power consumption.
The E2-3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J1750 in performance tests.
Note that E2-3200 is a desktop processor while Celeron J1750 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between E2-3200 and Celeron J1750, 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.
