Core i5-2410M vs Celeron J4115
Aggregate performance score
Celeron J4115 outperforms i5-2410M by a substantial 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Celeron J4115 and Core i5-2410M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1950 | 2215 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.76 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Gemini Lake | Intel Core i5 |
| Architecture codename | Gemini Lake (2019) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 4 November 2019 (4 years ago) | 20 February 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $225 |
| Current price | $888 | $122 (0.5x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Celeron J4115 and Core i5-2410M 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | no data | 3 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 149 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 624 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Celeron J4115 and Core i5-2410M 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 | BGA1090 | rPGA988B / BGA1023 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron J4115 and Core i5-2410M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron J4115 and Core i5-2410M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron J4115 and Core i5-2410M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 21.335 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel UHD Graphics 600 | Intel HD Graphics 3000 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron J4115 and Core i5-2410M.
| PCI Express lanes | 6 | 16 |
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 J4115 outperforms Core i5-2410M by 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Celeron J4115 outperforms Core i5-2410M by 38% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Core i5-2410M outperforms Celeron J4115 by 76% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Core i5-2410M outperforms Celeron J4115 by 7% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Celeron J4115 outperforms Core i5-2410M by 14% in 3DMark06 CPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Celeron J4115 outperforms Core i5-2410M by 24% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Celeron J4115 outperforms Core i5-2410M by 31% in TrueCrypt AES.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Core i5-2410M outperforms Celeron J4115 by 98% in WinRAR 4.0.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Celeron J4115 outperforms Core i5-2410M by 22% in x264 encoding pass 2.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.74 | 1.26 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.87 | 0.66 |
| Recency | 4 November 2019 | 20 February 2011 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 35 Watt |
Celeron J4115 has a 38.1% higher aggregate performance score, 31.8% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 8 years, 100% more physical cores, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.
The Celeron J4115 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-2410M in performance tests.
Note that Celeron J4115 is a desktop processor while Core i5-2410M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron J4115 and Core i5-2410M, 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.
