Celeron 2957U vs J4005

Aggregate performance score

Celeron J4005
2017
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
1.01
+80.4%

Celeron J4005 outperforms Celeron 2957U by an impressive 80% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron J4005 and Celeron 2957U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking24692835
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.03no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Power efficiency9.213.40
Architecture codenameGoldmont Plus (2017)Haswell (2013−2015)
Release date11 December 2017 (6 years ago)1 January 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$107$107

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron J4005 and Celeron 2957U 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 GHz1.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.7 GHz1.4 GHz
Bus rateno data5 GT/s
Multiplier20no data
L1 cache112 KB128 KB
L2 cache4 MB (shared)512 KB
L3 cache4 MB2 MB
Chip lithography14 nm22 nm
Die size93 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature105 °C100 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-

Compatibility

Information on Celeron J4005 and Celeron 2957U 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
SocketFCBGA1090FCBGA1168
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J4005 and Celeron 2957U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shift-no data
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Smart Response--
GPIO++
Smart Connectno data+
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
FDIno data-
AMTno data9.5
Matrix Storageno data-
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data+

Security technologies

Celeron J4005 and Celeron 2957U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data-
EDB++
Secure Key++
MPX+-
Identity Protection+-
SGXYes with Intel® MEno data
OS Guard+-
Anti-Theft--

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J4005 and Celeron 2957U are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+-
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J4005 and Celeron 2957U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory size8 GB16 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth38.397 GB/s25.6 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel UHD Graphics 600Intel® HD Graphics for 4th Generation Intel® Processors
Max video memory8 GBno data
Quick Sync Video++
Clear Videono data+
Graphics max frequency700 MHz1 GHz
Execution Units12no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron J4005 and Celeron 2957U integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported33
eDP++
DisplayPort++
HDMI++
MIPI-DSI+no data

Graphics image quality

Maximum display resolutions supported by Celeron J4005 and Celeron 2957U integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.

4K resolution support+no data

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron J4005 and Celeron 2957U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectX12no data
OpenGL4.4no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J4005 and Celeron 2957U.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes610
PCI supportno data-
USB revision2.0/3.03.0
Total number of SATA ports22
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports22
Integrated IDEno data-
Number of USB ports84
Integrated LAN--
UART++

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 J4005 1.01
+80.4%
Celeron 2957U 0.56

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 J4005 1553
+81.6%
Celeron 2957U 855

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Celeron J4005 2085
+0.4%
Celeron 2957U 2077

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Celeron J4005 3500
Celeron 2957U 4043
+15.5%

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Celeron J4005 33.07
+61.8%
Celeron 2957U 53.5

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Celeron J4005 1
+15.8%
Celeron 2957U 1

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Celeron J4005 144
+37.1%
Celeron 2957U 105

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Celeron J4005 77
+40%
Celeron 2957U 55

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Celeron J4005 0.85
+37.1%
Celeron 2957U 0.62

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Celeron J4005 1
+638%
Celeron 2957U 0.1

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Celeron J4005 10
+31.6%
Celeron 2957U 8

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Celeron J4005 50
+21%
Celeron 2957U 41

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Celeron J4005 798
Celeron 2957U 1058
+32.6%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.01 0.56
Recency 11 December 2017 1 January 2014
Chip lithography 14 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 15 Watt

Celeron J4005 has a 80.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The Celeron J4005 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron 2957U in performance tests.

Note that Celeron J4005 is a desktop processor while Celeron 2957U is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J4005 and Celeron 2957U, 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 J4005
Celeron J4005
Intel Celeron 2957U
Celeron 2957U

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.


3.1 162 votes

Rate Celeron J4005 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 70 votes

Rate Celeron 2957U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron J4005 or Celeron 2957U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.