E-240 vs Celeron J3060
Primary details
Comparing Celeron J3060 and E-240 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Celeron | AMD E-Series |
| Architecture codename | Airmont (2016) | Zacate (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 15 January 2016 (8 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $107 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Celeron J3060 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 | 1.6 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.48 GHz | 1.5 GHz |
| Bus type | IDI | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Die size | no data | 75 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron J3060 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | FT1 BGA 413-Ball |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 18 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J3060 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 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | 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 J3060 and E-240 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| 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 J3060 and E-240 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| VT-i | - | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J3060 and E-240. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3L-1600 | 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 | no data | AMD Radeon HD 6310 |
| Max video memory | 8 GB | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 700 MHz | no data |
| Execution Units | 12 | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J3060 and E-240 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Celeron J3060 and E-240 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | + | no data |
| OpenGL | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J3060 and E-240.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 4 | no data |
| USB revision | 2.0/3.0 | no data |
| Total number of SATA ports | 5 | no data |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | no data |
| Number of USB ports | 5 | no data |
| 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.
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
| Recency | 15 January 2016 | 4 January 2011 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 1 |
| Threads | 2 | 1 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 18 Watt |
Celeron J3060 has an age advantage of 5 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Celeron J3060 and E-240. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Celeron J3060 is a desktop processor while E-240 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J3060 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.
