Celeron J1800 vs G530

VS

Aggregate performance score

Celeron G530
2011
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.71
+97.2%
Celeron J1800
2013
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.36

Celeron G530 outperforms Celeron J1800 by an impressive 97% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron G530 and Celeron J1800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27133051
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.02no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Celeron
Power efficiency1.033.41
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge (2011−2013)Bay Trail-D (2013)
Release date4 September 2011 (13 years ago)1 November 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$50$72

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron G530 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 cores2 (Dual-core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads22
Base clock speed2.4 GHz2.41 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz2.58 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)112 KB
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB
L3 cache2 MB (shared)1 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography32 nm22 nm
Die size131 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature69 °C105 °C
Number of transistors504 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron G530 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
SocketFCLGA1155FCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron G530 and Celeron J1800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
PAEno data36 Bit
FDI+-
Fast Memory Access+no data
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Celeron G530 and Celeron J1800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB++
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron G530 and Celeron J1800 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron G530 and Celeron J1800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size32 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth17 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel HD Graphics for 2nd Generation Intel ProcessorsIntel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series
Quick Sync Video-+
Graphics max frequency1 GHz792 MHz
InTru 3D--

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron G530 and Celeron J1800 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported22

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron G530 and Celeron J1800.

PCIe version2.02.0
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.

Celeron G530 0.71
+97.2%
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.

Celeron G530 1126
+96.5%
Celeron J1800 573

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.71 0.36
Recency 4 September 2011 1 November 2013
Chip lithography 32 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 10 Watt

Celeron G530 has a 97.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Celeron J1800, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 550% lower power consumption.

The Celeron G530 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron J1800 in performance tests.

Note that Celeron G530 is a desktop processor while Celeron J1800 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron G530 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.


Intel Celeron G530
Celeron G530
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.


2.8 204 votes

Rate Celeron G530 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 Celeron G530 or Celeron J1800, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.