E-240 vs Celeron J1800
Aggregate performance score
Celeron J1800 outperforms E-240 by a whopping 200% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron J1800 and E-240 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3051 | 3354 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD E-Series |
| Power efficiency | 3.41 | 0.63 |
| Architecture codename | Bay Trail-D (2013) | Zacate (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 1 November 2013 (11 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $72 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron J1800 and E-240 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) | 1 (Single-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Base clock speed | 2.41 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.58 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 112 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 1 MB L2 Cache | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | no data | 75 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron J1800 and E-240 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 |
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | FT1 BGA 413-Ball |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 18 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J1800 and E-240. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX(+), SSE(1,2,3,3S,4A), AMD-V |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
| FDI | - | no data |
| RST | - | no data |
Security technologies
Celeron J1800 and E-240 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | - | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J1800 and E-240 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J1800 and E-240. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 Single-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics for Intel Atom Processor Z3700 Series | AMD Radeon HD 6310 |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Graphics max frequency | 792 MHz | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J1800 and E-240 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J1800 and E-240.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.36 | 0.12 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.77 | 0.32 |
| Recency | 1 November 2013 | 4 January 2011 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 18 Watt |
Celeron J1800 has a 200% higher aggregate performance score, 140.6% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 2 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 81.8% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.
The Celeron J1800 is our recommended choice as it beats the E-240 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J1800 and E-240, 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.
