Celeron E3300 vs Celeron J1900

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 E3300 vs Celeron J1900 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 E3300 vs Celeron J1900: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron E3300

2009

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $50 MSRP, while Celeron J1900 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌3150% higher power demand at 65W vs 2W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J1900 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron J1900

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 2W instead of 65W, a 63W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics, while Celeron E3300 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,152 vs 1,155).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron E3300 better than Celeron J1900?

Yes. Celeron E3300 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.3% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron E3300 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 2.1% 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 E3300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron E3300 is the better buy right now. Celeron E3300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $50 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (23.1 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron J1900 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron E3300 vs Celeron J1900 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron E3300

The Celeron E3300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,155 points. Launch price was $70.

Celeron J1900

The Celeron J1900 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 November 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.42 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,152 points. Launch price was $82.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron E3300 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron J1900 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron J1900 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the Celeron E3300 versus 2.42 GHz on the Celeron J1900 — a 3.3% clock advantage for the Celeron E3300 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Celeron E3300 uses the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron J1900 uses Bay Trail-D (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron E3300 scores 1,155 against the Celeron J1900's 1,152 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron E3300. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron E3300 vs 2 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1900.

Feature	Celeron E3300	Celeron J1900
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz+3%	2.42 GHz
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+25%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	1 MB (total)	2 MB+100%
Process	45 nm	22 nm-51%
Architecture	Wolfdale (2008−2010)	Bay Trail-D (2013)
PassMark	1,155	1,152
Geekbench 6 Single	347	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	624	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron E3300 uses the LGA775 socket (PCIe 1.1), while the Celeron J1900 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the Celeron E3300 versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron J1900 — the Celeron J1900 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Celeron E3300) vs 4 (Celeron J1900) — the Celeron J1900 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: G31,G41,P45 (Celeron E3300) and Bay Trail SoC (Celeron J1900).

Feature	Celeron E3300	Celeron J1900
Socket	LGA775	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 1.1	PCIe 2.0+82%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	DDR3L-1333+25%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron E3300) / not specified (Celeron J1900). The Celeron J1900 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics), while the Celeron E3300 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron E3300 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E3300 rivals Pentium E5200.