Celeron J1800 vs Athlon X4 950

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon X4 950
2017
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
2.26
+528%
Celeron J1800
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.36

Athlon X4 950 outperforms Celeron J1800 by a whopping 528% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Athlon X4 950 and Celeron J1800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking18283050
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.66no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency3.293.40
Architecture codenameBristol Ridge (2016−2019)Bay Trail-D (2013)
Release date27 July 2017 (7 years ago)1 November 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$60$72

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Athlon X4 950 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed3.5 GHz2.41 GHz
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz2.58 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)112 KB
L2 cache512 KB (per core)1 MB
L3 cache0 KB1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography28 nm22 nm
Die size246 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data105 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,178 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Athlon X4 950 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 configuration11
SocketAM4FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X4 950 and Celeron J1800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
PAEno data36 Bit
FDIno data-
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Athlon X4 950 and Celeron J1800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X4 950 and Celeron J1800 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X4 950 and Celeron J1800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelDDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series
Quick Sync Video-+
Graphics max frequencyno data792 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Athlon X4 950 and Celeron J1800 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X4 950 and Celeron J1800.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data4

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.

Athlon X4 950 2.26
+528%
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.

Athlon X4 950 3591
+526%
Celeron J1800 574

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.26 0.36
Recency 27 July 2017 1 November 2013
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 10 Watt

Athlon X4 950 has a 527.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron J1800, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 550% lower power consumption.

The Athlon X4 950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J1800 in performance tests.

Note that Athlon X4 950 is a desktop processor while Celeron J1800 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X4 950 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.


AMD Athlon X4 950
Athlon X4 950
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.


3.7 291 vote

Rate Athlon X4 950 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 Athlon X4 950 or Celeron J1800, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.