Celeron J1850 vs E-350

Celeron J1850 vs E-350 Performance Spectrum

Celeron J1850

4 / 4

1,035

0.0%

1,049

+1.4%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

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 E-350 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 E-350: 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

✅Draws 2W instead of 18W, a 16W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while E-350 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,035 vs 1,049).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.6 vs 21.0 PassMark/$ ($82 MSRP vs $50 MSRP).

E-350

2011

Why buy it

✅+1.4% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $32 less on MSRP ($50 MSRP vs $82 MSRP).
✅Delivers 66.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 21.0 vs 12.6 PassMark/$ ($50 MSRP vs $82 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌800% higher power demand at 18W vs 2W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J1850 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J1850 better than E-350?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron J1850 is ahead with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 36 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, E-350 pulls ahead with 1.4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E-350 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron J1850 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Celeron J1850 comes in 64.0% more expensive on MSRP at $82 MSRP versus $50 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 36 shared CPU game tests in our data. E-350 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 0.1% in the shared gaming data.

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

Celeron J1850 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Celeron J1850 vs E-350 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.

E-350

The E-350 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 4 January 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,049 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Celeron J1850 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the E-350 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Celeron J1850 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Celeron J1850 versus 1.6 GHz on the E-350 — a 22.2% clock advantage for the Celeron J1850. The Celeron J1850 uses the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the E-350 uses Zacate (2011−2013) (40 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J1850 scores 1,035 against the E-350's 1,049 — a 1.3% lead for the E-350. L3 cache: 2 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1850 vs 0 kB on the E-350.

Feature	Celeron J1850	E-350
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz+25%	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	2 MB L2 Cache	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB	512K (per core)+25500%
Process	22 nm-45%	40 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-D (2013)	Zacate (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,035	1,049+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	180	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	450	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J1850 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the E-350 uses FT1 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron J1850	E-350
Socket	FCBGA1170	FT1
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	4	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron J1850) / not specified (E-350). The Celeron J1850 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the E-350 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J1850 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J1850 rivals Pentium J2900.

Feature	Celeron J1850	E-350
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	HD Graphics (Bay Trail)	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	VT-x	—
Target Use	Low Power	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Celeron J1850 was priced at $82, while the E-350 came in at $50. On launch pricing ($82 vs $50), E-350 was $32 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Celeron J1850 delivers 12.6 pts/$ vs 21.0 pts/$ for the E-350 — making the E-350 the 49.7% better value option.

Feature	Celeron J1850	E-350
MSRP	$82	$50-39%
Performance per Dollar	12.6	21.0+67%
Release Date	2013	2011

Search Celeron J1850 on Amazon

Search E-350 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.