Celeron J4025 vs E1-2100

Celeron J4025 vs E1-2100 Performance Spectrum

Celeron J4025

2 / 2

1,450

+1.0%

1,435

0.0%

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 J4025 vs E1-2100 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 J4025 vs E1-2100: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Celeron J4025

2019

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (6 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel UHD Graphics 600, while E1-2100 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

E1-2100

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 9W instead of 10W, a 1W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,435 vs 1,450).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J4025 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J4025 better than E1-2100?

Yes. Celeron J4025 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, 1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron J4025 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 J4025 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron J4025 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron J4025 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 2.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron J4025 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2013) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Celeron J4025 vs E1-2100 Technical Specifications

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

Celeron J4025

The Celeron J4025 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 November 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Gemini Lake Refresh (2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 4 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1090. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,450 points. Launch price was $107.

E1-2100

The E1-2100 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Kabini (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1024 kB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 9 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,435 points. Launch price was $50.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Celeron J4025 and E1-2100 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.9 GHz on the Celeron J4025 versus 1 GHz on the E1-2100 — a 97.4% clock advantage for the Celeron J4025. The Celeron J4025 uses the Gemini Lake Refresh (2019) architecture (14 nm), while the E1-2100 uses Kabini (2013−2014) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron J4025 scores 1,450 against the E1-2100's 1,435 — a 1% lead for the Celeron J4025. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Celeron J4025 vs 0 kB on the E1-2100.

Feature	Celeron J4025	E1-2100
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.9 GHz+190%	1 GHz
Base Clock	2 GHz	—
L3 Cache	4 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	4 MB (total)+300%	1024 kB
Process	14 nm-50%	28 nm
Architecture	Gemini Lake Refresh (2019)	Kabini (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,450+1%	1,435

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Celeron J4025 uses the FCBGA1090 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the E1-2100 uses FT3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Celeron J4025	E1-2100
Socket	FCBGA1090	FT3
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	8	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	6	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: true (Celeron J4025) / not specified (E1-2100). The Celeron J4025 includes integrated graphics (Intel UHD Graphics 600), while the E1-2100 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron J4025 rivals Ryzen Embedded R1102G.