Celeron J3355 vs Atom C3538

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Atom C3538
2017
4 cores / 4 threads, 15 Watt
1.19
+58.7%
Celeron J3355
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.75

Atom C3538 outperforms Celeron J3355 by an impressive 59% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Atom C3538 and Celeron J3355 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking23612662
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.040.06
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesIntel AtomIntel Celeron
Power efficiency7.477.06
Architecture codenameGoldmont (2016−2017)Apollo Lake (2014−2016)
Release date15 August 2017 (7 years ago)30 August 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$75$107

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Celeron J3355 has 50% better value for money than Atom C3538.

Detailed specifications

Atom C3538 and Celeron J3355 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 speed2.1 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.1 GHz2.5 GHz
Multiplier2120
L1 cache224 KBno data
L2 cache8 MB1 MB
L3 cache8 MB0 KB
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature87 °C105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Atom C3538 and Celeron J3355 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCBGA1310FCBGA1296
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom C3538 and Celeron J3355. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
QuickAssist+no data
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Responseno data-
GPIOno data+
Smart Connectno data-
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Atom C3538 and Celeron J3355 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDB++
Secure Boot++
Secure Key++
Identity Protection-+
SGX-no data
OS Guard+-
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom C3538 and Celeron J3355 are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
VT-ino data-
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom C3538 and Celeron J3355. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4: 2133DDR3, DDR4
Maximum memory size256 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth29.871 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataIntel HD Graphics 500
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video-+
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HDno data+
Graphics max frequencyno data700 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Atom C3538 and Celeron J3355 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data3
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
MIPI-DSIno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Atom C3538 and Celeron J3355 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data+
OpenGLno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom C3538 and Celeron J3355.

PCIe version32.0
PCI Express lanes126
USB revision32.0/3.0
Total number of SATA ports122
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports122
Number of USB ports88
Integrated LAN2x10/2.5/1 GBE + 2x2.5/1 GBE-
UARTno data+

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.

Atom C3538 1.19
+58.7%
Celeron J3355 0.75

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.

Atom C3538 1889
+57.8%
Celeron J3355 1197

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.

Atom C3538 255
Celeron J3355 273
+7.1%

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.

Atom C3538 895
+94.6%
Celeron J3355 460

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.19 0.75
Recency 15 August 2017 30 August 2016
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 10 Watt

Atom C3538 has a 58.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Celeron J3355, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.

The Atom C3538 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J3355 in performance tests.

Be aware that Atom C3538 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron J3355 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Atom C3538 and Celeron J3355, 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 Atom C3538
Atom C3538
Intel Celeron J3355
Celeron J3355

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.


1.5 2 votes

Rate Atom C3538 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 58 votes

Rate Celeron J3355 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Atom C3538 or Celeron J3355, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.