Celeron 1019Y vs Celeron J3060

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Celeron 1019Y vs Celeron J3060 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Celeron 1019Y vs Celeron J3060: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Celeron 1019Y

2013

Why buy it

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,005 vs 1,015).
❌8433.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 6W.

Celeron J3060

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 512W, a 506W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J3060 better than Celeron 1019Y?

Yes. Celeron J3060 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron J3060 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.6% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron J3060 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Celeron J3060 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron J3060 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Celeron J3060 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2013) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron 1019Y vs Celeron J3060 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Celeron 1019Y

The Celeron 1019Y is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1 GHz, with boost up to 1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3/L/-RS 1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,005 points. Launch price was $153.

Celeron J3060

The Celeron J3060 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Airmont (2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.48 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,015 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron 1019Y and Celeron J3060 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1 GHz on the Celeron 1019Y versus 2.48 GHz on the Celeron J3060 — a 85.1% clock advantage for the Celeron J3060 (base: 1 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Celeron 1019Y uses the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron J3060 uses Airmont (2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 1019Y scores 1,005 against the Celeron J3060's 1,015 — a 1% lead for the Celeron J3060. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron 1019Y vs 0 kB on the Celeron J3060.

Feature	Celeron 1019Y	Celeron J3060
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1 GHz	2.48 GHz+148%
Base Clock	1 GHz	1.6 GHz+60%
L3 Cache	2 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB	1 MB+100%
Process	22 nm	14 nm-36%
Architecture	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)	Airmont (2016)
PassMark	1,005	1,015
Geekbench 6 Single	—	200
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	370

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron 1019Y uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron J3060 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1600 memory speed. The Celeron 1019Y supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron 1019Y) vs 4 (Celeron J3060) — the Celeron 1019Y offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM77,UM77,HM76,HM75 (Celeron 1019Y) and SoC (Celeron J3060).

Feature	Celeron 1019Y	Celeron J3060
Socket	BGA1023	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB+300%	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	16+300%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron 1019Y) vs VT-x, EPT (Celeron J3060). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1019Y) and Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron J3060) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 1019Y targets Budget, Celeron J3060 targets Low Power Desktop/NAS. Direct competitor: Celeron 1019Y rivals Pentium 2117U; Celeron J3060 rivals Pentium J3710.

Feature	Celeron 1019Y	Celeron J3060
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)	Intel HD Graphics 400
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x	VT-x, EPT
Target Use	Budget	Low Power Desktop/NAS