Celeron J1900 vs Atom C3558

VS

Aggregate performance score

Atom C3558
2017
4 cores / 4 threads, 16 Watt
1.53
+113%
Celeron J1900
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 10 Watt
0.72

Atom C3558 outperforms Celeron J1900 by a whopping 113% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Atom C3558 and Celeron J1900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking21252678
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.47no data
Market segmentServerLaptop
SeriesIntel AtomIntel Celeron
Power efficiency9.056.81
Architecture codenameGoldmont (2016−2017)Bay Trail-D (2013)
Release date15 August 2017 (7 years ago)1 November 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86$82

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Atom C3558 and Celeron J1900 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed2.2 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz2.42 GHz
Multiplier22no data
L1 cache224 KB224 KB
L2 cache8 MB2 MB
L3 cache8 MB2 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography14 nm22 nm
Maximum core temperature83 °C105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Atom C3558 and Celeron J1900 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
SocketFCBGA1310FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)16 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom C3558 and Celeron J1900. 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--
PAEno data36 Bit
FDIno data-
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Atom C3558 and Celeron J1900 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

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

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom C3558 and Celeron J1900 are enumerated here.

VT-d+-
VT-x++
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom C3558 and Celeron J1900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4: 2133DDR3
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 for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series
Quick Sync Video-+
Graphics max frequencyno data854 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Atom C3558 and Celeron J1900 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom C3558 and Celeron J1900.

PCIe version32.0
PCI Express lanes124
USB revision3no data
Total number of SATA ports12no data
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports12no data
Number of USB ports8no data
Integrated LAN2x10/2.5/1 GBE + 2x2.5/1 GBEno 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 C3558 1.53
+113%
Celeron J1900 0.72

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 C3558 2431
+111%
Celeron J1900 1151

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.53 0.72
Recency 15 August 2017 1 November 2013
Chip lithography 14 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 16 Watt 10 Watt

Atom C3558 has a 112.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.

Celeron J1900, on the other hand, has 60% lower power consumption.

The Atom C3558 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J1900 in performance tests.

Be aware that Atom C3558 is a server/workstation processor while Celeron J1900 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Atom C3558 and Celeron J1900, 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 C3558
Atom C3558
Intel Celeron J1900
Celeron J1900

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.


4 1 vote

Rate Atom C3558 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 196 votes

Rate Celeron J1900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Atom C3558 or Celeron J1900, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.