Celeron J3060 vs E3400
Aggregate performance score
Celeron E3400 outperforms Celeron J3060 by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron E3400 and Celeron J3060 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2832 | 2961 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.72 | 0.02 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | Intel Celeron |
| Power efficiency | 0.80 | 6.78 |
| Architecture codename | Wolfdale (2008−2010) | Airmont (2016) |
| Release date | 17 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 15 January 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $76 | $107 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Celeron E3400 has 18500% better value for money than Celeron J3060.
Detailed specifications
Celeron E3400 and Celeron J3060 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 2.48 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | IDI |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (shared) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 82 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 74 °C | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 228 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron E3400 and Celeron J3060 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 | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | LGA775 | FCBGA1170 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 6 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron E3400 and Celeron J3060. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Smart Response | no data | - |
| GPIO | no data | + |
| Smart Connect | no data | - |
| HD Audio | no data | + |
| RST | no data | - |
Security technologies
Celeron E3400 and Celeron J3060 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Boot | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | no data | - |
| Anti-Theft | no data | - |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron E3400 and Celeron J3060 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | - | - |
| VT-x | + | + |
| VT-i | no data | - |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron E3400 and Celeron J3060. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3L-1600 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Max video memory | no data | 8 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 700 MHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 12 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron E3400 and Celeron J3060 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron E3400 and Celeron J3060 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | + |
| OpenGL | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron E3400 and Celeron J3060.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 4 |
| USB revision | no data | 2.0/3.0 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 5 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 2 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 5 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | - |
| UART | no 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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.55 | 0.43 |
| Recency | 17 January 2010 | 15 January 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 6 Watt |
Celeron E3400 has a 27.9% higher aggregate performance score.
Celeron J3060, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 983.3% lower power consumption.
The Celeron E3400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J3060 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron E3400 and Celeron J3060, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
