Celeron J1850 vs E2-9000

VS

Aggregate performance score

E2-9000
2016
2 cores / 2 threads, 10 Watt
0.61
+3.4%
Celeron J1850
2013
4 cores / 4 threads, 10 Watt
0.59

E2-9000 outperforms Celeron J1850 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing E2-9000 and Celeron J1850 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking27862797
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
SeriesBristol RidgeIntel Celeron
Power efficiency5.775.58
Architecture codenameStoney Ridge (2016−2019)Bay Trail-D (2013)
Release date1 June 2016 (8 years ago)1 September 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$82

Detailed specifications

E2-9000 and Celeron J1850 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads24
Base clock speed1.8 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz2 GHz
L1 cacheno data224 KB
L2 cache1 MB2 MB
L3 cacheno data2 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography28 nm22 nm
Die size124.5 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature90 °C100 °C
Number of transistors1200 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on E2-9000 and Celeron J1850 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 configurationno data1
SocketBGAFCBGA1170
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt10 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by E2-9000 and Celeron J1850. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsVirtualization,no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
PAEno data36 Bit
FDIno data-
RSTno data-

Security technologies

E2-9000 and Celeron J1850 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDBno data+
Anti-Theftno data-

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by E2-9000 and Celeron J1850 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data-
VT-xno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by E2-9000 and Celeron J1850. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data8 GB
Max memory channelsno data2

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R2 (Stoney Ridge)Intel® HD Graphics for Intel Atom® Processor Z3700 Series
Graphics max frequencyno data792 MHz

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of E2-9000 and Celeron J1850 integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supportedno data2

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by E2-9000 and Celeron J1850.

PCIe versionno data2.0
PCI Express lanesno data4

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.

E2-9000 0.61
+3.4%
Celeron J1850 0.59

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.

E2-9000 967
+2.7%
Celeron J1850 942

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.61 0.59
Recency 1 June 2016 1 September 2013
Physical cores 2 4
Threads 2 4
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm

E2-9000 has a 3.4% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

Celeron J1850, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 27.3% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between E2-9000 and Celeron J1850.


Should you still have questions on choice between E2-9000 and Celeron J1850, 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.


AMD E2-9000
E2-9000
Intel Celeron J1850
Celeron J1850

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.


2.5 311 votes

Rate E2-9000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 11 votes

Rate Celeron J1850 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about E2-9000 or Celeron J1850, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.