Notebookcheck Logo

Intel Celeron J3355 vs Intel Celeron N3350

Intel Celeron J3355

► remove from comparison Intel Celeron J3355

The Intel Celeron J3355 is a dual-core SoC primarily for inexpensive notebooks and was announced in late 2016. It runs at 2 - 2.5 GHz (Single Core Burst) and is based on the Apollo Lake platform. Similar to the Braswell predecessor, the chip is manufactured in a 14 nm process (P1273) with FinFETs. Besides two CPU cores, the chip also includes a DirectX 12 capable GPU as well as a DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 memory controller (dual-channel, up to 1866/2400 MHz).

Architecture

For the first time in a couple of years, Intel completely reworked the CPU architecture of the Atom series. The manufacturer advertises performance gains of roughly 30 percent, but does not reveal any specifics about the individual changes. The new Goldmont architecture should therefore be roughly on par with AMD's Beema/Carrizo-L APUs in terms of per-MHz performance, but it still far behind the more expensive Core CPUs (like Skylake / Kaby Lake).

Performance

The CPU performance of the Celeron J3355 is slightly better than the lower power Celeron N3350 and less depending on the cooling solution. This means the processor is only suited for light daily tasks (office, browsing).

GPU Performance

The HD Graphics 500 (Apollo Lake) is based on Intel's Gen9 architecture, which supports DirectX 12 and is also used for the Kaby Lake / Skylake graphics adapters (like HD Graphics 520). Equipped with 12 EUs and a clock of up to 700 MHz, the performance should be roughly on par with the older HD Graphics (Braswell). This means only older and simpler titles will run smoothly.

The chip also includes an advanced video engine with hardware support for the playback of VP9 and H.265 material (8-bit color-depth).

Power Consumption

The Celeron J3355 is specified at 10 Watt TDP and therefore 4 Watts higher than the slightly slower Celeron N3350.

Intel Celeron N3350

► remove from comparison

The Intel Celeron N3350 is an Apollo Lake family, dual-core, ultra-low-power processor (SoC) that saw the light of day in 2016. Its two cores run at 1.1 GHz to 2.4 GHz; these are not Hyper-Threading-enabled meaning there are no additional threads. This chip has a fairly competent integrated graphics solution, the Intel HD Graphics 500, and eats very little (~6 W).

Amusingly enough, Intel keeps making and selling the Celeron as of late 2022, albeit the price has dropped from about $100 to about $20 per unit making the CPU even more popular with ultra-budget nettop and laptop makers.

Architecture & Features

Just like other Celeron N, Celeron J, Pentium N, Pentium J processors, this Celeron is notable for its small die size. It is easy to manufacture, lowering the costs and enabling Intel to compete with various ARM-based products (hello, Raspberry Pi).

The Celeron N3350 features the Goldmont CPU microarchitecture. This replaces the dated Silvermont (2013), bringing with it several welcome improvements and making for a double-digit IPC improvement. There is still no L3 cache to be found here, however, it now takes less cycles to perform many operations.

The Celeron is compatible with DDR3L-1866, LPDDR3-1866, LPDDR4-2400 RAM. Intel's guidelines state that up to 8 GB are supported; that being said, various forum users report that the CPU functions just fine if mated to 16 GB and even 32 GB of RAM. The chip features six PCI-Express 2.0 lanes for connecting various devices, meaning a four-lane NVMe SSD will not be able to deliver a data transfer rate of more than 2 GB/s. eMMC and SATA storage is supported natively, too.

This Intel CPU is Secure Boot-compatible; technically, it will have no issue running 64-bit Windows 11. However, Microsoft only allows Windows 11 to be installed on systems with CPUs released in 2017 or later, making 64-bit Windows 10 the only OS that the Celeron is officially compatible with.

Last but not the least, please keep in mind that this is not a user-replaceable CPU. It gets permanently soldered to the motherboard (BGA1296 socket interface).

Performance

The average N3350 in our database is just as fast as the Atom x5-Z8300 and the Core 2 Duo SU7300, as far as multi-thread benchmark scores are concerned. Which is not fast at all. In fact, the two cores of this Celeron trail behind a single core of any half-decent CPU such as Intel's very own Core i3-7130U. A proper x86 CPU, Celeron N3350 will let you run nearly any Windows app, the caveat being that you will have to wait for several seconds every time you click on something. Windows 10 takes nearly a minute to fully boot with this CPU.

Graphics

The Intel HD Graphics 500 (Apollo Lake) is the highlight of this little Celeron. As far as the feature set is concerned, the HD Graphics 500 is not much different from the HD Graphics 520 or any other graphics adapter that full-blown six-generation Intel Core i3/i5/i7 chips have. This iGPU is compatible with DX12; it will drive up to 3 monitors with resolutions as high as 2160p60. It will happily decode VP9 and AVC-encoded videos, too. These are the two codecs that YouTube mostly relies on, as of 2021.

It's not all roses and sunshine. To keep power consumption under control, the number of Execution Units was reduced to 12 (the HD Graphics 520 has 24 EUs at its disposal, for reference). Besides, the UHD Graphics runs at up to 650 MHz which is not a lot. Very few games will be playable on this graphics solution - mostly, ones that were released in the 2000s or even in the 1990s.

Power consumption

The Celeron's default TDP (also known as the Power Limit 1) is 6 W, making it a great option for passively cooled systems. Increasing the PL1 by one or two watts, which many systems built around Apollo Lake allow one to do, makes for a much more responsive user experience, speaking subjectively.

Energy efficiency isn't great here, as Intel's 14 nm processes are very old as of mid 2022.

ModelIntel Celeron J3355Intel Celeron N3350
SeriesIntel CeleronIntel Celeron
CodenameApollo LakeApollo Lake
Series: Celeron Apollo Lake
Intel Celeron J3455 compare1.5 - 2.3 GHz4 / 4 cores
Intel Celeron N3450 compare1.1 - 2.2 GHz4 / 4 cores
Intel Celeron J3355 « 2 - 2.5 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Celeron N33501.1 - 2.4 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Celeron J3455 compare1.5 - 2.3 GHz4 / 4 cores
Intel Celeron N3450 compare1.1 - 2.2 GHz4 / 4 cores
Intel Celeron J33552 - 2.5 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Celeron N3350 « 1.1 - 2.4 GHz2 / 2 cores
Clock2000 - 2500 MHz1100 - 2400 MHz
L2 Cache2 MB2 MB
Cores / Threads2 / 22 / 2
TDP10 Watt6 Watt
Technology14 nm14 nm
max. Temp.105 °C105 °C
SocketFCBGA1296BGA1296
FeaturesIntel HD Graphics 500 (12 EUs, 200 - 700 MHz), Quick Sync, AES-NI, max. 8 GB Dual-Channel DDR3L-1866/LPDDR3-1866/LPDDR4-2400 , 8x USB 3.0, 6x PCIe 2.0, 2x SATA 6.0 Gbit/sDDR3L-1866/LPDDR3-1866/LPDDR4-2400 RAM, PCIe 2, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES
iGPUIntel HD Graphics 500 (250 - 700 MHz)Intel HD Graphics 500 (200 - 650 MHz)
Architecturex86x86
$107 U.S.$24 U.S.
Announced
Manufacturerark.intel.comark.intel.com

Benchmarks

Performance Rating - CB R15 + R20 + 7-Zip + X265 + Blender + 3DM11 CPU - Celeron N3350
11.6 pt (16%)
Cinebench R23 - Cinebench R23 Multi Core
328 Points (0%)
Cinebench R23 - Cinebench R23 Single Core
252 Points (11%)
Cinebench R20 - Cinebench R20 CPU (Single Core)
106 Points (12%)
min: 100     avg: 103.5     median: 103.5 (12%)     max: 107 Points
Cinebench R20 - Cinebench R20 CPU (Multi Core)
200 Points (0%)
min: 151     avg: 170.5     median: 170.5 (0%)     max: 190 Points
Cinebench R15 - Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64 Bit
90 Points (1%)
Cinebench R15 - Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64 Bit
47.6 Points (14%)
Cinebench R11.5 - Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64 Bit
min: 1.07     avg: 1.1     median: 1.1 (1%)     max: 1.12 Points
Cinebench R11.5 - Cinebench R11.5 CPU Single 64 Bit
min: 0.59     avg: 0.6     median: 0.6 (15%)     max: 0.6 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit)
min: 1458     avg: 1570     median: 1490 (9%)     max: 1917 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (32bit)
min: 1775     avg: 2505     median: 2654 (2%)     max: 2787 Points
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 1024m *
min: 1225     avg: 1300     median: 1258 (15%)     max: 1418 s
wPrime 2.10 - wPrime 2.0 32m *
min: 42.2     avg: 46.1     median: 45.5 (9%)     max: 50.6 s
WinRAR - WinRAR 4.0
616 Points (1%)
7-Zip 18.03 - 7-Zip 18.03 Multli Thread 4 runs
3541 MIPS (2%)
min: 2692     avg: 2980     median: 2979.5 (2%)     max: 3267 MIPS
7-Zip 18.03 - 7-Zip 18.03 Single Thread 4 runs
1825 MIPS (22%)
min: 1653     avg: 1724     median: 1723.5 (21%)     max: 1794 MIPS
X264 HD Benchmark 4.0 - x264 Pass 2
6.2 fps (2%)
X264 HD Benchmark 4.0 - x264 Pass 1
32.5 fps (7%)
HWBOT x265 Benchmark v2.2 - HWBOT x265 4k Preset
0.7 fps (1%)
min: 0.63     avg: 0.6     median: 0.6 (1%)     max: 0.65 fps
TrueCrypt - TrueCrypt Serpent
0.1 GB/s (0%)
TrueCrypt - TrueCrypt Twofish
0.1 GB/s (2%)
TrueCrypt - TrueCrypt AES
0.7 GB/s (2%)
Blender - Blender 2.79 BMW27 CPU *
5811 Seconds (41%)
min: 6275     avg: 6276     median: 6276 (44%)     max: 6277 Seconds
R Benchmark 2.5 - R Benchmark 2.5 *
min: 2.21     avg: 2.3     median: 2.3 (50%)     max: 2.433 sec
3DMark 06 - CPU - 3DMark 06 - CPU
min: 1624     avg: 1655     median: 1654.5 (4%)     max: 1685 Points
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M *
min: 27.5     avg: 29.2     median: 27.5 (6%)     max: 32.5 s
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M *
min: 61.2     avg: 64.5     median: 61.2 (3%)     max: 71.1 s
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 32M *
min: 1515     avg: 1532     median: 1538 (7%)     max: 1543 s
3DMark 11 - 3DM11 Performance Physics
min: 1159     avg: 1294     median: 1333 (4%)     max: 1356 Points
3DMark - 3DMark Ice Storm Physics
min: 11556     avg: 12344     median: 12344 (10%)     max: 13132 Points
3DMark - 3DMark Ice Storm Extreme Physics
min: 11665     avg: 12042     median: 12041.5 (10%)     max: 12418 Points
3DMark - 3DMark Ice Storm Unlimited Physics
min: 10653     avg: 12775     median: 13161.5 (11%)     max: 14698 Points
3DMark - 3DMark Cloud Gate Physics
min: 941     avg: 986     median: 978.5 (2%)     max: 1029 Points
3DMark - 3DMark Fire Strike Standard Physics
1234 Points (2%)
min: 1293     avg: 1412     median: 1412 (3%)     max: 1501 Points
Geekbench 5.5 - Geekbench 5.1 - 5.4 64 Bit Single-Core
min: 310     avg: 320     median: 320 (14%)     max: 330 Points
Geekbench 5.5 - Geekbench 5.1 - 5.4 64 Bit Multi-Core
min: 591     avg: 606     median: 605.5 (1%)     max: 620 Points
Geekbench 5.0 - Geekbench 5.0 64 Bit Single-Core
309 Points (1%)
Geekbench 5.0 - Geekbench 5.0 64 Bit Multi-Core
587 Points (2%)
Geekbench 4.4 - Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4 64 Bit Single-Core
1532 Points (15%)
min: 1374     avg: 1473     median: 1495 (15%)     max: 1529 Points
Geekbench 4.4 - Geekbench 4.1 - 4.4 64 Bit Multi-Core
2742 Points (3%)
min: 2427     avg: 2599     median: 2619.5 (3%)     max: 2731 Points
Geekbench 4.0 - Geekbench 4.0 64 Bit Single-Core
min: 1464     avg: 1491     median: 1500 (20%)     max: 1510 Points
Geekbench 4.0 - Geekbench 4.0 64 Bit Multi-Core
min: 2529     avg: 2589     median: 2589 (6%)     max: 2648 Points
Geekbench 3 - Geekbench 3 32 Bit Multi-Core
min: 2409     avg: 2468     median: 2467.5 (4%)     max: 2526 Points
Geekbench 3 - Geekbench 3 32 Bit Single-Core
min: 1314     avg: 1328     median: 1327.5 (26%)     max: 1341 Points
Mozilla Kraken 1.1 - Kraken 1.1 Total Score *
min: 3108     avg: 3519     median: 3443 (4%)     max: 4230 ms
Sunspider - Sunspider 1.0 Total Score *
min: 255     avg: 370.3     median: 299.2 (3%)     max: 628 ms
Octane V2 - Octane V2 Total Score
min: 8457     avg: 9831     median: 9492.5 (9%)     max: 11461 Points
WebXPRT 3 - WebXPRT 3 Score
min: 49.2     avg: 55.4     median: 52.2 (11%)     max: 68 Points
PCMark for Android - PCM f. Android Computer Vision
3574 Points (19%)
PCMark for Android - PCM f. Android Storage
7138 Points (15%)
PCMark for Android - PCM f. Android Work Score 2.0
5377 Points (35%)
PCMark for Android - PCM f. Android Work Score
7007 Points (35%)
Power Consumption - Prime95 Power Consumption - external Monitor *
8.1 Watt (1%)
Power Consumption - Cinebench R15 Multi Power Consumption - external Monitor *
6.7 Watt (1%)
Power Consumption - Cinebench R15 Multi Power Efficiency - external Monitor
12.5 Points per Watt (9%)

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron J3355 → 100% n=11

Average Benchmarks Intel Celeron N3350 → 95% n=11

- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

Add one or more devices and compare

In the following list you can select (and also search for) devices that should be added to the comparison. You can select more than one device.

restrict list:

show all (including archived), 2024, 2023
v1.26
log 29. 06:55:08

#0 checking url part for id 11501 +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 8185 +0s ... 0s

#2 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s

#3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:35:32 +0100 +0.001s ... 0.001s

#4 composed specs +0.025s ... 0.026s

#5 did output specs +0s ... 0.026s

#6 getting avg benchmarks for device 11501 +0.003s ... 0.029s

#7 got single benchmarks 11501 +0.007s ... 0.036s

#8 getting avg benchmarks for device 8185 +0.016s ... 0.052s

#9 got single benchmarks 8185 +0.078s ... 0.13s

#10 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.13s

#11 min, max, avg, median took s +0.198s ... 0.328s

#12 return log +0.03s ... 0.357s

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Benchmarks / Tech > Processor Comparison - Head 2 Head
Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2023-07- 1)