Celeron J1850 vs Celeron N2930

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 N2930 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 N2930: 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

✅+5.9% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Draws 2W instead of 7W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (450 vs 502).
❌Launch MSRP is still $82 MSRP, while Celeron N2930 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Celeron N2930

2014

Why buy it

✅+11.6% higher Geekbench multi-core.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (170 vs 180).
❌250% higher power demand at 7W vs 2W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J1850 better than Celeron N2930?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron J1850 is ahead with a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2930 pulls ahead with 11.6% better Geekbench multi-core.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2930 is the stronger fit. You are getting 11.6% better Geekbench multi-core, 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 $82 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Celeron N2930 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 11.6% better Geekbench multi-core. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (12.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 N2930 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2013) and 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 N2930 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 N2930

The Celeron N2930 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.83 GHz, with boost up to 2.16 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: 1,032 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron J1850 and Celeron N2930 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron J1850 versus 2.16 GHz on the Celeron N2930 — a 7.7% clock advantage for the Celeron N2930 (base: 2 GHz vs 1.83 GHz). The Celeron J1850 uses the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron N2930 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J1850 scores 1,035 against the Celeron N2930's 1,032 — a 0.3% lead for the Celeron J1850. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 180 vs 170, a 5.7% lead for the Celeron J1850 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 450 vs 502 (10.9% advantage for the Celeron N2930). L3 cache: 2 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1850 vs 0 kB on the Celeron N2930.

Feature	Celeron J1850	Celeron N2930
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.16 GHz+8%
Base Clock	2 GHz+9%	1.83 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	1,032
Geekbench 6 Single	180+6%	170
Geekbench 6 Multi	450	502+12%

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the FCBGA1170 socket with PCIe 2.0. Both support up to DDR3L-1333 memory speed. 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 SoC (Celeron N2930).

Feature	Celeron J1850	Celeron N2930
Socket	FCBGA1170	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	DDR3L-1333
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x (Celeron J1850) vs Yes (Celeron N2930). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron J1850) and Intel HD Graphics (Celeron N2930) — 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.