Intel Celeron J4105 vs Intel Celeron N3150
Vergleichende Analyse von Intel Celeron J4105 und Intel Celeron N3150 Prozessoren für alle bekannten Merkmale in den folgenden Kategorien: Essenzielles, Leistung, Speicher, Grafik, Grafikschnittstellen, Grafik-Bildqualität, Unterstützung der Grafik-API, Kompatibilität, Peripherien, Sicherheit & Zuverlässigkeit, Fortschrittliche Technologien, Virtualisierung. Benchmark-Prozessorleistungsanalyse: PassMark - Single thread mark, PassMark - CPU mark, Geekbench 4 - Single Core, Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Unterschiede
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der Intel Celeron J4105
- CPU ist neuer: Startdatum 2 Jahr(e) 8 Monat(e) später
- Etwa 20% höhere Taktfrequenz: 2.50 GHz vs 2.08 GHz
- Etwa 17% höhere Kerntemperatur: 105°C vs 90°C
- 2x mehr L2 Cache, mehr Daten können im L2 Cache gespeichert werden, um später schnell darauf zugreifen zu können
- Etwa 92% bessere Leistung in PassMark - Single thread mark: 1085 vs 564
- 2.5x bessere Leistung in PassMark - CPU mark: 2891 vs 1178
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in Geekbench 4 - Single Core: 412 vs 192
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core: 1365 vs 655
- 3.7x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 30 vs 8.191
- 2.1x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 2.947 vs 1.375
- Etwa 44% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 722 vs 501
- Etwa 58% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1384 vs 875
- Etwa 52% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2229 vs 1471
- Etwa 44% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 722 vs 501
- Etwa 58% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1384 vs 875
- Etwa 52% bessere Leistung in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2229 vs 1471
| Spezifikationen | |
| Startdatum | 11 December 2017 vs 1 April 2015 |
| Maximale Frequenz | 2.50 GHz vs 2.08 GHz |
| Maximale Kerntemperatur | 105°C vs 90°C |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB vs 2 MB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 1085 vs 564 |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 2891 vs 1178 |
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 412 vs 192 |
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 1365 vs 655 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 30 vs 8.191 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2.947 vs 1.375 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 722 vs 501 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1384 vs 875 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2229 vs 1471 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 722 vs 501 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1384 vs 875 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2229 vs 1471 |
Gründe, die für die Berücksichtigung der Intel Celeron N3150
- Etwa 67% geringere typische Leistungsaufnahme: 6 Watt vs 10 Watt
- Etwa 40% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 4.724 vs 3.374
- Etwa 85% bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.484 vs 0.261
- 4x bessere Leistung in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 5.104 vs 1.281
| Spezifikationen | |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 6 Watt vs 10 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 4.724 vs 3.374 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.484 vs 0.261 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 5.104 vs 1.281 |
Benchmarks vergleichen
CPU 1: Intel Celeron J4105
CPU 2: Intel Celeron N3150
| PassMark - Single thread mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - CPU mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel Celeron J4105 | Intel Celeron N3150 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - Single thread mark | 1085 | 564 |
| PassMark - CPU mark | 2891 | 1178 |
| Geekbench 4 - Single Core | 412 | 192 |
| Geekbench 4 - Multi-Core | 1365 | 655 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.374 | 4.724 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 30 | 8.191 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.261 | 0.484 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 1.281 | 5.104 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 2.947 | 1.375 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 722 | 501 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1384 | 875 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2229 | 1471 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 722 | 501 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1384 | 875 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2229 | 1471 |
Vergleichen Sie Spezifikationen
| Intel Celeron J4105 | Intel Celeron N3150 | |
|---|---|---|
Essenzielles |
||
| Architektur Codename | Gemini Lake | Braswell |
| Startdatum | 11 December 2017 | 1 April 2015 |
| Einführungspreis (MSRP) | $107 | $107 |
| Platz in der Leistungsbewertung | 2434 | 2766 |
| Jetzt kaufen | $107 | |
| Processor Number | J4105 | N3150 |
| Serie | Intel® Celeron® Processor J Series | Intel® Celeron® Processor N Series |
| Status | Launched | Discontinued |
| Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis (0-100) | 7.27 | |
| Vertikales Segment | Desktop | Mobile |
Leistung |
||
| 64-Bit-Unterstützung | ||
| Base frequency | 1.50 GHz | 1.60 GHz |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 2 MB |
| Fertigungsprozesstechnik | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Maximale Kerntemperatur | 105°C | 90°C |
| Maximale Frequenz | 2.50 GHz | 2.08 GHz |
| Anzahl der Adern | 4 | 4 |
| Anzahl der Gewinde | 4 | 4 |
Speicher |
||
| Maximale Speicherkanäle | 2 | 2 |
| Maximale Speichergröße | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Unterstützte Speichertypen | DDR4/LPDDR4 upto 2400 MT/s | DDR3L-1600 |
Grafik |
||
| Device ID | 0x3185 | |
| Ausführungseinheiten | 12 | 12 |
| Graphics base frequency | 250 MHz | 320 MHz |
| Graphics max dynamic frequency | 750 MHz | |
| Maximaler Videospeicher | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Prozessorgrafiken | Intel® UHD Graphics 600 | Intel HD Graphics |
| Grafik Maximalfrequenz | 640 MHz | |
| Intel® Clear Video HD Technologie | ||
| Intel® Clear Video Technologie | ||
| Intel® InTru™ 3D-Technologie | ||
| Intel® Quick Sync Video | ||
Grafikschnittstellen |
||
| DisplayPort | ||
| eDP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| MIPI-DSI | ||
| Anzahl der unterstützten Anzeigen | 3 | 3 |
| Unterstützung für Wireless Display (WiDi) | ||
Grafik-Bildqualität |
||
| Unterstützung von 4K-Auflösungen | ||
Unterstützung der Grafik-API |
||
| DirectX | 12 | Yes |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | Yes |
Kompatibilität |
||
| Low Halogen Options Available | ||
| Maximale Anzahl von CPUs in einer Konfiguration | 1 | 1 |
| Package Size | 25mm x 24mm | 25mm x 27mm |
| Unterstützte Sockel | FCBGA1090 | FCBGA1170 |
| Thermische Designleistung (TDP) | 10 Watt | 6 Watt |
| Thermal Solution | 105 deg C | |
| Scenario Design Power (SDP) | 4 W | |
Peripherien |
||
| Integriertes LAN | ||
| Integrated Wireless | Intel® Wireless-AC MAC | |
| Maximale Anzahl von PCIe-Strecken | 6 | 4 |
| Maximale Anzahl der SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | 2 | 2 |
| Anzahl der USB-Ports | 8 | 5 |
| PCI Express Revision | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCIe configurations | 1x4 + 1x2 or 4x1 or 2x1+1x2 + 1x2 | 1x4/2x2/1x2 + 2x1/4x1 |
| Gesamtzahl der SATA-Anschlüsse | 2 | 2 |
| UART | ||
| USB-Überarbeitung | 2.0/3.0 | 2.0/3.0 |
Sicherheit & Zuverlässigkeit |
||
| Anti-Theft Technologie | ||
| Execute Disable Bit (EDB) | ||
| Intel® Identity Protection Technologie | ||
| Intel® Memory Protection Extensions (Intel® MPX) | ||
| Intel® OS Guard | ||
| Intel® Secure Key Technologie | ||
| Intel® Software Guard Extensions (Intel® SGX) | ||
| Intel® Trusted Execution Technologie (TXT) | ||
| Secure Boot | ||
Fortschrittliche Technologien |
||
| Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technologie | ||
| General-Purpose Input/Output (GPIO) | ||
| Idle States | ||
| Intel 64 | ||
| Intel® AES New Instructions | ||
| Intel® Hyper-Threading Technologie | ||
| Intel® Optane™ Memory Supported | ||
| Intel® Smart Response Technologie | ||
| Intel® Turbo Boost Technologie | ||
| Intel® vPro™ Platform Eligibility | ||
| Speed Shift technology | ||
| Thermal Monitoring | ||
| 4G WiMAX Wireless | ||
| HD Audio | ||
| Intel® Rapid Storage Technologie (RST) | ||
| Intel® Stable Image Platform Program (SIPP) | ||
| Smart Connect | ||
Virtualisierung |
||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O (VT-d) | ||
| Intel® VT-x with Extended Page Tables (EPT) | ||
| Intel® Virtualization Technology for Itanium (VT-i) | ||
Navigation
Wählen Sie eine CPU
Prozessoren
Vergleiche Intel Celeron J4105 mit anderen
IntelCeleron J4105 vs
IntelCore i5-2500K
IntelCeleron J4105 vs
IntelCeleron G1820
IntelCeleron J4105 vs
AMDFX-8370
IntelCeleron J4105 vs
AMDAthlon 5350
IntelCeleron J4105 vs
IntelCore i5-3340
IntelCeleron J4105 vs
AMDAthlon X2 450
