Celeron J4025 vs Apple M4 Max (16 cores)
Aggregate performance score
Apple M4 Max (16 cores) outperforms Celeron J4025 by a whopping 2921% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron J4025 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 167 | 2532 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.63 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Apple M4 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 29.43 | 8.77 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Gemini Lake Refresh (2019) |
| Release date | 30 October 2024 (less than a year ago) | 4 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron J4025 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.51 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 56 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 93 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | + |
Compatibility
Information on M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron J4025 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | no data | Intel BGA 1090 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 90 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron J4025. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron J4025 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron J4025. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Apple M4 40-core GPU | Intel UHD Graphics 600 (250 - 700 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron J4025.
| PCIe version | no data | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 6 |
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.
CrossMark Overall
WebXPRT 4 Overall
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.79 | 0.92 |
| Recency | 30 October 2024 | 4 November 2019 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 2 |
| Threads | 16 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 90 Watt | 10 Watt |
Apple M4 Max (16 cores) has a 2920.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
Celeron J4025, on the other hand, has 800% lower power consumption.
The M4 Max (16 cores) is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J4025 in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M4 Max (16 cores) is a notebook processor while Celeron J4025 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M4 Max (16 cores) and Celeron J4025, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
