Celeron J1850 vs Celeron N2920

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 J1850 vs Celeron N2920 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 J1850 vs Celeron N2920: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron J1850

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 2W instead of 7W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $82 MSRP, while Celeron N2920 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Celeron N2920

2013

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,030 vs 1,035).
❌250% higher power demand at 7W vs 2W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J1850 better than Celeron N2920?

Yes. Celeron J1850 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.5% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron J1850 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron J1850 is the better buy right now. Celeron J1850 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $82 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (12.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 J1850 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron J1850 vs Celeron N2920 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J1850

The Celeron J1850 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 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 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: 1,035 points. Launch price was $82.

Celeron N2920

The Celeron N2920 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,030 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron J1850 and Celeron N2920 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron J1850 versus 2 GHz on the Celeron N2920 — identical boost frequencies (base: 2 GHz vs 1.86 GHz). The Celeron J1850 uses the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron N2920 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J1850 scores 1,035 against the Celeron N2920's 1,030 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron J1850. L3 cache: 2 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1850 vs 0 kB on the Celeron N2920.

Feature	Celeron J1850	Celeron N2920
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz+8%	1.86 GHz
L3 Cache	2 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB	512K (per core)+25500%
Process	22 nm	22 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-D (2013)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,035	1,030
Geekbench 6 Single	180	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	450	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the FCBGA1170 socket with PCIe 2.0. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron J1850 versus 1066 on the Celeron N2920 — the Celeron J1850 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. Both provide 4 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: N/A (SoC) (Celeron J1850) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2920).

Feature	Celeron J1850	Celeron N2920
Socket	FCBGA1170	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333+25%	1066
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron J1850) vs true (Celeron N2920). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron J1850) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2920) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J1850 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J1850 rivals Pentium J2900; Celeron N2920 rivals AMD A4-6210.