Celeron J3355 vs N2940

Aggregate performance score

Celeron N2940
2014
4 cores / 4 threads, 7 Watt
0.66
Celeron J3355
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.75
+13.6%

Celeron J3355 outperforms Celeron N2940 by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Celeron N2940 and Celeron J3355 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27402645
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.02
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
Power efficiency8.927.10
Architecture codenameBay Trail-M (2013−2014)Apollo Lake (2014−2016)
Release date22 May 2014 (10 years ago)30 August 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$107

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron N2940 and Celeron J3355 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads42
Base clock speed1.83 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.25 GHz2.5 GHz
Multiplierno data20
L1 cache56K (per core)no data
L2 cache512K (per core)1 MB
L3 cache0 KB0 KB
Chip lithography22 nm14 nm
Maximum core temperature100 °C105 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Celeron N2940 and Celeron J3355 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCBGA1170FCBGA1296
Power consumption (TDP)7.5 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron J3355. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology--
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring-+
Smart Responseno data-
GPIOno data+
Smart Connect+-
HD Audiono data+
RSTno data-

Security technologies

Celeron N2940 and Celeron J3355 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDB++
Secure Bootno data+
Secure Key++
Identity Protection-+
OS Guardno data-
Anti-Theft--

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron J3355 are enumerated here.

VT-d-+
VT-x++
VT-ino data-
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron J3355. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3, DDR4
Maximum memory size8 GB8 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth21.32 GB/sno data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 SeriesIntel HD Graphics 500
Max video memoryno data8 GB
Quick Sync Video++
Clear Videono data+
Clear Video HD-+
Graphics max frequency854 MHz700 MHz
Execution Unitsno data12
InTru 3D--

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Celeron N2940 and Celeron J3355 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported23
eDPno data+
DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+
MIPI-DSIno data+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron J3355 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno data+
OpenGLno data+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron N2940 and Celeron J3355.

PCIe version2.02.0
PCI Express lanes46
USB revision3.0 and 2.02.0/3.0
Total number of SATA ports22
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Portsno data2
Number of USB ports58
Integrated LANno data-
UARTno 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.

Celeron N2940 0.66
Celeron J3355 0.75
+13.6%

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 N2940 1044
Celeron J3355 1197
+14.7%

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.

Celeron N2940 167
Celeron J3355 273
+63.5%

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.

Celeron N2940 501
+8.9%
Celeron J3355 460

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

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

Celeron N2940 111
+22.8%
Celeron J3355 90

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 N2940 36
Celeron J3355 48
+34.1%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.66 0.75
Recency 22 May 2014 30 August 2016
Physical cores 4 2
Threads 4 2
Chip lithography 22 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 10 Watt

Celeron N2940 has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 42.9% lower power consumption.

Celeron J3355, on the other hand, has a 13.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.

The Celeron J3355 is our recommended choice as it beats the Celeron N2940 in performance tests.

Be aware that Celeron N2940 is a notebook processor while Celeron J3355 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron N2940 and Celeron J3355, 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 N2940
Celeron N2940
Intel Celeron J3355
Celeron J3355

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.


2.6 106 votes

Rate Celeron N2940 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 58 votes

Rate Celeron J3355 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron N2940 or Celeron J3355, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.