Celeron J3060
VS
Pentium B950

Celeron J3060 vs Pentium B950

Intel

Celeron J3060

2 Cores2 Thrd6 WWMax: 2.48 GHz2016
VS
Intel

Pentium B950

2 Cores2 Thrd35 WWMax: 2.1 GHz2011

Performance Spectrum - CPU

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron J3060 is positioned at rank 313 and the Pentium B950 is on rank 1142, so the Celeron J3060 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron J3060

#1
Ryzen 9 7950X
MSRP: $194|Avg: $20
4606%
#2
Core i9-10900T
MSRP: $120|Avg: $5
4353%
#3
Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE
MSRP: $423|Avg: $5
3160%
#4
Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85
952%
#5
Ryzen 9 9950X
MSRP: $649|Avg: $129
754%
#6
Ryzen 5 8400F
MSRP: $303|Avg: $55
660%
#7
Ryzen 7 PRO 2700
MSRP: $299|Avg: $60
378%
#8
Ryzen 5 2600X
MSRP: $229|Avg: $55
373%
#9
Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G
MSRP: $150|Avg: $60
340%
#10
Core Ultra 5 245KF
MSRP: $294|Avg: $189
340%
#11
Ryzen 5 5500
MSRP: $159|Avg: $85
336%
#12
Ryzen 5 3600
MSRP: $199|Avg: $80
327%
#13
Core i3-9100E
MSRP: $202|Avg: $30
322%
#14
Core Ultra 5 245K
MSRP: $319|Avg: $200
321%
#15
Core i3-8300T
MSRP: $138|Avg: $25
318%
#287
Core Ultra 9 285T
MSRP: $549|Avg: $549
99%
#288
Core i5-12500TE
MSRP: $225|Avg: $225
99%
#289
Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE
MSRP: $108|Avg: $70
98%
#290
Core i9-10900KF
MSRP: $509|Avg: $336
98%
#291
Core i9-14900T
MSRP: $549|Avg: $577
98%
#292
Core i5-13500T
MSRP: $342|Avg: $342
98%
#293
Core i3-10300
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $140.49
98%
#294
Core i9-10900F
MSRP: $464|Avg: $300
98%
#295
Ryzen 7 5800X3D
MSRP: $449|Avg: $429
97%
#313
Celeron J3060
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
#314
Athlon 5150
MSRP: $21|Avg: $21
100%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Pentium B950

#1130
Atom x5-Z8300
MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A
3845%
#1131
Atom Z3735G
MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A
3789%
#1132
Core i5-480M
MSRP: $81|Avg: $77
3478%
#1133
Core i5-460M
MSRP: $80|Avg: $129
3463%
#1134
Core i5-2540M
MSRP: $266|Avg: $10
3431%
#1136
Core i5-450M
MSRP: $32|Avg: $31
3313%
#1137
Core i3-380M
MSRP: $49|Avg: $25
3177%
#1138
Core i5-430M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33
3172%
#1139
Core 2 Duo T6600
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4
3087%
#1142
Pentium B950
MSRP: $134|Avg: $35
100%
#1143
Celeron 220
MSRP: $42|Avg: $42
100%
#1144
Pentium B960
MSRP: $134|Avg: $15
100%
#1146
Pentium 957
MSRP: $134|Avg: $10
99%
#1147
Core 2 Duo SL9400
MSRP: $284|Avg: N/A
99%
#1149
Pentium N3540
MSRP: $161|Avg: $161
98%
#1150
Core i7-3555LE
MSRP: $300|Avg: $280
98%
#1151
Core i3-2377M
MSRP: $250|Avg: N/A
97%
#1152
Core 2 Duo E8435
MSRP: $150|Avg: $74
96%
#1153
Celeron M 723
MSRP: $161|Avg: $161
96%
#1154
Core M-5Y51
MSRP: $281|Avg: $281
95%
#1155
Core i7-3517UE
MSRP: $330|Avg: $35
95%
#1156
Pentium N3530
MSRP: $161|Avg: $20
94%
#1157
Core i3-330E
MSRP: $177|Avg: $89
93%
Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Leadership: The Pentium B950 delivers superior performance across the board. It outperforms the Celeron J3060 in both compute-intensive tasks (0.7% faster) and gaming workloads.
InsightCeleron J3060Pentium B950
Gaming
Lower gaming performance
Superior gaming performance
Workstation
Weaker in multi-core tasks
Better multi-core power
Price
More affordable ($0)
⚠️ Higher cost ($35)
Longevity
🛑 Legacy (Airmont (2016) / 14 nm)
🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

InsightCeleron J3060Pentium B950
Cost Efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost
More affordable ($0)
⚠️ Higher cost ($35)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Celeron J3060 and Pentium B950

Intel

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.

Intel

Pentium B950

The Pentium B950 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 June 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 2.1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,022 points. Launch price was $134.

Processing Power

Both the Celeron J3060 and Pentium B950 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.48 GHz on the Celeron J3060 versus 2.1 GHz on the Pentium B950 — a 16.6% clock advantage for the Celeron J3060 (base: 1.6 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Celeron J3060 uses the Airmont (2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Pentium B950 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J3060 scores 1,015 against the Pentium B950's 1,022 — a 0.7% lead for the Pentium B950. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 200 vs 379, a 61.8% lead for the Pentium B950 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 370 vs 671 (57.8% advantage for the Pentium B950). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Celeron J3060 vs 2 MB (total) on the Pentium B950.

FeatureCeleron J3060Pentium B950
Cores / Threads
2 / 2
2 / 2
Boost Clock
2.48 GHz+18%
2.1 GHz
Base Clock
1.6 GHz
2.1 GHz+31%
L3 Cache
0 kB
2 MB (total)
L2 Cache
1 MB+300%
256K (per core)
Process
14 nm-56%
32 nm
Architecture
Airmont (2016)
Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark
1,015
1,022
Geekbench 6 Single
200
379+90%
Geekbench 6 Multi
370
671+81%
🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J3060 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Pentium B950 uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3L-1600 memory speed. The Pentium B950 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Celeron J3060) vs 16 (Pentium B950) — the Pentium B950 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SoC (Celeron J3060) and HM65,HM67 (Pentium B950).

FeatureCeleron J3060Pentium B950
Socket
FCBGA1170
PGA988
PCIe Generation
PCIe 3.0+50%
PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity
8 GB
16 GB+100%
RAM Channels
2
2
ECC Support
PCIe Lanes
4
16+300%
🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, EPT (Celeron J3060) vs VT-x (Pentium B950). Both include integrated graphics Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron J3060) and Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Pentium B950) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J3060 targets Low Power Desktop/NAS, Pentium B950 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron J3060 rivals Pentium J3710.

FeatureCeleron J3060Pentium B950
Integrated GPU
Yes
Yes
IGPU Model
Intel HD Graphics 400
Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked
No
No
AVX-512
No
No
Virtualization
VT-x, EPT
VT-x
Target Use
Low Power Desktop/NAS
Budget