Celeron J1800 vs Pentium 987

VS

Aggregate performance score

Pentium 987
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 17 Watt
0.41
+13.9%
Celeron J1800
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.36

Pentium 987 outperforms Celeron J1800 by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Pentium 987 and Celeron J1800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking29953051
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesIntel PentiumIntel Celeron
Power efficiency2.283.41
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Bay Trail-D (2013)
Release date1 February 2013 (11 years ago)1 November 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$134$72

Detailed specifications

Pentium 987 and Celeron J1800 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 speed1.5 GHz2.41 GHz
Boost clock speed1.5 GHz2.58 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate4 × 5 GT/sno data
Multiplier15no data
L1 cache64K (per core)112 KB
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography32 nm22 nm
Die size131 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature100 °C105 °C
Number of transistors504 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Pentium 987 and Celeron J1800 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCBGA1023FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)17 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Pentium 987 and Celeron J1800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
FMA+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
My WiFi-no data
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
PAEno data36 Bit
FDI+-
Fast Memory Access+no data
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Pentium 987 and Celeron J1800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB++
Anti-Theft--

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Pentium 987 and Celeron J1800 are enumerated here.

VT-d--
VT-x-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Pentium 987 and Celeron J1800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size16.38 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth21.335 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel ProcessorsIntel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series
Quick Sync Video-+
Graphics max frequency1 GHz792 MHz
InTru 3D--

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Pentium 987 and Celeron J1800 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported22
eDP+no data
DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-
SDVO+no data
CRT+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Pentium 987 and Celeron J1800.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes164

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.

Pentium 987 0.41
+13.9%
Celeron J1800 0.36

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.

Pentium 987 657
+14.5%
Celeron J1800 574

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.41 0.36
Recency 1 February 2013 1 November 2013
Chip lithography 32 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 17 Watt 10 Watt

Pentium 987 has a 13.9% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron J1800, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 70% lower power consumption.

The Pentium 987 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J1800 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Pentium 987 and Celeron J1800, 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 Pentium 987
Pentium 987
Intel Celeron J1800
Celeron J1800

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.


2.8 44 votes

Rate Pentium 987 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 539 votes

Rate Celeron J1800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Pentium 987 or Celeron J1800, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.