OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Celeron J4025 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£95PassMark benchmark result:1450N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:2.9 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1090TDP (Thermal design power):10 W

Intel Celeron J4025 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

3.1

Overall score

Score
3.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

90%

3.1

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 99% of processors
3.1

Technical score

Technical score
3.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

60%

1.6

Performance

18%

4.6

Cache & Architecture

10%

3.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.2

Power & Thermal

4%

7.1

Platform

1%

6.4

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 99% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £95

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
    Loading category ranking...

    Technical Specifications of processor Intel Celeron J4025

    Technical score
    Technical score
    3.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
    When it matters
    When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Score components:

    60%

    1.6

    Performance

    18%

    4.6

    Cache & Architecture

    10%

    3.6

    Memory & PCIe

    7%

    8.2

    Power & Thermal

    4%

    7.1

    Platform

    1%

    6.4

    Integrated Graphics

    3.1
    User score
    User score
    8.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
    Score components

    70%

    ?

    User ratings

    30%

    ?

    Number of reviews

    ?
    Popularity
    Popularity
    1.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
    When it matters
    When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
    Popularity:
    Intel Celeron J4025 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
    1.0
    Value for money
    Value for money
    5.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
    When it matters
    When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Score components:

    60%

    3.1

    Overall score

    40%

    10

    Price

    5.2
    Brand name
    Intel
    Processor type
    embedded
    Processor type
    embedded
    â–¼ Worse than 93% of models
    This processor belongs to the embedded processor class, which is less advanced than that of 92.7% of processors and equal to that of 7.3% of processors.
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1090
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1090
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    This processor uses the FCBGA1090 CPU socket, which is older than that of 96.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
    Chipset
    N/A
    CPU architecture
    x86-64
    CPU architecture
    x86-64
    â–² Better than 2% of models
    This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
    Show more
    N. of physical cores
    2
    N. of physical cores
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 79.3% of processors and equal to 20.6% of processors.
    CPU threads
    2
    CPU threads
    2
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor offers 2 CPU threads, which is fewer than 94% of processors and equal to 5.9% of processors.
    Threads per core
    1
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.9 GHz
    CPU boost clock speed
    2.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor reaches a boost clock of 2.9 GHz which is lower than that of 94% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
    CPU base clock speed
    2x 2.0 GHz & 0x 0 GHz
    CPU base clock speed
    2x 2.0 GHz & 0x 0 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    This processor has a base clock of 2x2.0 GHz & 0x0 GHz which is lower than that of 94.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
    Show more
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
    Foundry
    Intel 14 nm
    Foundry
    Intel 14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 29.3% of processors.
    L3 cache
    0 MB
    L3 cache
    0 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has an L3 cache of 0 MB which is smaller than that of 93.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.4% of processors.
    L2 cache
    4 MB
    L2 cache
    4 MB
    â–² Better than 55% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 55.4% of processors and equal to that of 9.3% of processors.
    L1 cache
    112 KB
    L1 cache
    112 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has an L1 cache of 112 KB which is smaller than that of 98.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
    Show more
    DDR memory version
    DDR4
    DDR memory version
    DDR4
    â–¼ Worse than 42% of models
    This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% of processors.
    Maximum memory speed
    2,400 MHz
    Maximum memory speed
    2,400 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 63% of processors and equal to 12.4% of processors.
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to 11.5% of processors.
    Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
    N/A
    Maximum memory capacity
    8 GB
    Maximum memory capacity
    8 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor supports up to 8 GB of memory, which is less than 98.2% of processors and equal to 1.7% of processors.
    Show more
    Integrated graphics
    yes
    Integrated graphics
    yes
    â–² Better than 12% of models
    This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
    Intel UHD Graphics 600
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel UHD Graphics 600
    Integrated GPU model
    Intel UHD Graphics 600
    â–¼ Worse than 60% of models
    This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 600 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 59.9% of processors and equal to that in 0.5% of processors.
    Integrated GPU execution units
    12
    Integrated GPU execution units
    12
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has 12 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 62.7% of processors and equal to 9.3% of processors.
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    250 MHz
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    250 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 250 MHz which is lower than that of 96.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.4% of processors.
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode)
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode)
    â–² Better than 69% of models
    This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is broader support than 69.4% of processors and equal to 0.3% of processors.
    Show more
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    10 W
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a TDP of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.8% of processors.
    Base power (PL1)
    10 W
    Base power (PL1)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a base power of 10 W which is lower than that of 94.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
    Boost power (PL2)
    10 W
    Boost power (PL2)
    10 W
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <25 W – >150 W
    This processor has a boost power of 10 W which is lower than that of 95.3% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
    Tau (power duration limit)
    N/A
    Configurable TDP
    no
    Configurable TDP
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
    This processor does not support configurable TDP. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
    Show more

    Intel Celeron J4025 vs the average processor

    246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
    • 4x more L2 per core
      L2 per core
      2 MB/core
      ★ Better than 90% of models
      Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
      This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
      2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
    • 77.8% lower base power
      Base power (PL1)
      10 W
      ★ Better than 94% of models
      Market range: <15 W – >90 W
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      10 W vs 45 W
    • Includes stock cooler
      Cooler included
      yes
      â–² Better than 74% of models
      This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
    • 83.3% lower boost power
      Boost power (PL2)
      10 W
      ★ Better than 95% of models
      Market range: <25 W – >150 W
      This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
      10 W vs 60 W
    • 47.5% smaller die size
      Die size
      93 mm²
      ★ Better than 92% of models
      Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
      This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (93 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
      93 mm² vs 177 mm²
    • 5 °C higher TJ Max
      Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
      105 °C
      â–² Better than 84% of models
      Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
      This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
      105 °C vs 100 °C
    • 77.8% lower TDP
      TDP (Thermal design power)
      10 W
      ★ Better than 95% of models
      Market range: <15 W – >90 W
      This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
      10 W vs 45 W
    • Includes crypto acceleration
      Cryptographic acceleration
      AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ
      â–² Better than 80% of models
      This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
      AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
    • 2.63x cheaper
      Intel Celeron J4025 is cheaper than the average processor (£95 vs £250).
      £95 vs £250
    • Includes crypto acceleration
      Cryptographic acceleration
      AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ
      â–² Better than 80% of models
      This processor includes crypto acceleration, the average processor does not. 0.00% of processors include crypto acceleration.
      AES, SHA, PCLMULQDQ vs AES, SHA
    • Advanced security extensions
      Security extensions
      AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
      â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
      This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
      AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
    • 4x more L2 per core
      L2 per core
      2 MB/core
      ★ Better than 90% of models
      Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
      This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
      2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
    • 47.5% smaller die size
      Die size
      93 mm²
      ★ Better than 92% of models
      Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
      This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (93 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
      93 mm² vs 177 mm²
    • 60% larger L2 cache
      L2 cache
      4 MB
      â–² Better than 55% of models
      Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
      This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
      4 MB vs 2.5 MB
    • 77.8% lower base power
      Base power (PL1)
      10 W
      ★ Better than 94% of models
      Market range: <15 W – >90 W
      This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
      10 W vs 45 W
    • Includes stock cooler
      Cooler included
      yes
      â–² Better than 74% of models
      This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
    • 83.3% lower boost power
      Boost power (PL2)
      10 W
      ★ Better than 95% of models
      Market range: <25 W – >150 W
      This processor has a lower boost power draw than the average processor (10 W vs 60 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 60 W.
      10 W vs 60 W
    • 5 °C higher TJ Max
      Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
      105 °C
      â–² Better than 84% of models
      Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
      This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
      105 °C vs 100 °C
    • 77.8% lower TDP
      TDP (Thermal design power)
      10 W
      ★ Better than 95% of models
      Market range: <15 W – >90 W
      This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (10 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
      10 W vs 45 W
    • 86.3% lower PassMark score
      PassMark benchmark result
      1,450
      â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
      Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,450 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
      1,450 vs 10,572.5
    • 88.8% lower multi-core score
      Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
      540
      â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
      Market range: <763 – >14k
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (540 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
      540 vs 4,829
    • 4 fewer CPU cores
      N. of physical cores
      2
      â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
      Market range: <2 – >12
      This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
      2 vs 6
    • 55.3% weaker single-core performance
      PassMark single-core benchmark score
      1,118
      â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
      Market range: <1.4k – >4k
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,118 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
      1,118 vs 2,500
    • 77.2% lower single-core score
      Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
      335
      â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
      Market range: <561 – >2.7k
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (335 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
      335 vs 1,471
    • 89.5% weaker multi-core performance
      Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
      293
      â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
      Market range: <702 – >10.8k
      This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (293 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
      293 vs 2,791
    • 32.6% lower boost clock
      CPU boost clock speed
      2.9 GHz
      â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
      Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
      This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
      2.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
    • Less advanced microarchitecture
      Microarchitecture codename
      Gemini Lake Refresh
      â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
      This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Gemini Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
      Gemini Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
    • 27% worse value for money
      Intel Celeron J4025 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.17 vs 6.6).
      5.17 vs 6.56
    • Narrower instruction support
      Instruction sets
      MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA
      â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
      This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
      MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
    • Older CPU socket
      CPU socket
      FCBGA1090
      â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
      This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1090 vs FP4).
      FCBGA1090 vs FP4
    • 86.3% lower PassMark score
      PassMark benchmark result
      1,450
      â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
      Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
      This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (1,450 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
      1,450 vs 10,572.5
    • 88.8% lower multi-core score
      Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
      540
      â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
      Market range: <763 – >14k
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (540 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
      540 vs 4,829
    • 4 fewer CPU cores
      N. of physical cores
      2
      â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
      Market range: <2 – >12
      This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
      2 vs 6
    • 55.3% weaker single-core performance
      PassMark single-core benchmark score
      1,118
      â–¼ Worse than 96% of models
      Market range: <1.4k – >4k
      This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,118 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
      1,118 vs 2,500
    • 77.2% lower single-core score
      Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
      335
      â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
      Market range: <561 – >2.7k
      This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (335 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
      335 vs 1,471
    • 89.5% weaker multi-core performance
      Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
      293
      â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
      Market range: <702 – >10.8k
      This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (293 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
      293 vs 2,791
    • 32.6% lower boost clock
      CPU boost clock speed
      2.9 GHz
      â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
      Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
      This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (2.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
      2.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
    • 63.6% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
      Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
      178
      â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
      Market range: <282 – >775
      This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (178 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
      178 vs 489
    • 6 fewer CPU threads
      CPU threads
      2
      â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
      Market range: <4 – >24
      This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (2 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
      2 vs 8
    • Lower base clock
      CPU base clock speed
      2 x 2.0 GHz & 0 x 0 GHz
      â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
      This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2 GHz & 0x0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
      2x2.0 GHz & 0x0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
    • No multithreading support
      Multithreading
      no
      â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
      This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
    • 1 fewer threads per core
      Threads per core
      1
      â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
      Market range: <0 – >2.5
      This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
      1 vs 2
    • 37.5% lower bus transfer rate
      Bus transfer rate
      5 GT/s
      â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
      Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
      This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
      5 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
    • No Turbo Boost
      Turbo Boost version
      no
      â–¼ Worse than 89% of models
      This processor does not support Turbo Boost, the average processor does. 88.6% of processors support Turbo Boost.
    • 8 lower clock multiplier
      Clock multiplier
      20
      â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
      Market range: <16 – >38
      This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (20 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
      20 vs 28
    • Less advanced microarchitecture
      Microarchitecture codename
      Gemini Lake Refresh
      â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
      This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Gemini Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake).
      Gemini Lake Refresh vs Kaby Lake
    • 16.7% larger process node
      Semiconductor size
      14 nm
      â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
      Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
      This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
      14 nm vs 12 nm
    • 70.8% smaller L1 cache
      L1 cache
      112 KB
      â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
      Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
      This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (112 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
      112 KB vs 384 KB
    • 10 fewer PCIe lanes
      PCIe lane count
      6
      â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
      Market range: <10 – >30
      This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (6 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
      6 vs 16
    • Older PCIe version
      PCIe version
      2.0
      â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
      This processor supports an older PCIe version than the average processor (2 vs 3).
      2.0 vs 3.0
    • 87.5% less memory capacity
      Maximum memory capacity
      8 GB
      â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
      Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
      This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (8 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
      8 GB vs 64 GB
    • Limited PCIe bifurcation
      PCIe bifurcation modes
      x1/x1/x1/x1
      â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
      This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
      x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
    • Lower JEDEC memory speed
      Max memory speed (JEDEC)
      DDR4-2400 MHz
      â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
      This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
      DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
    • 18.2% lower memory speed
      Maximum memory speed
      2,400 MHz
      â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
      Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
      This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
      2,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
    • 16.2% lower memory bandwidth
      Maximum memory bandwidth
      38.4 GB/s
      â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
      Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
      This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
      38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
    • 50% fewer GPU execution units
      Integrated GPU execution units
      12
      â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
      Market range: <6 – >64
      This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (12 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
      12 vs 24
    • Narrower media codec support
      Integrated media encoders/decoders
      H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode)
      â–² Better than 69% of models
      This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
      H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), MPEG-2 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
    • No configurable TDP
      Configurable TDP
      no
      â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
      This processor does not support configurable TDP, the average processor does. 52.8% of processors support configurable TDP.
    • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
      CPU temperature
      105 °C
      â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
      Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
      This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
      105 °C vs 100 °C

    Video reviews

    Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

    9.0
    UK Pro Reviewer
    ≈ estimated
    27/06/2024
    Quick overview · hardware and connectivity walkthrough
    Verdict
    Intel Celeron J4025 is a solid business choice, with spacious storage and a crisp display.
    Hands-on video, no verdict

    Third-party reviews

    What we like about Intel Celeron J4025

    • High energy efficiency with a low 10W TDP, ideal for 24/7 low-demand systems
    • Suitable for basic tasks like word processing, email, and light web browsing
    • Cost-effective choice for budget mini-PCs and POS systems
    • Supports up to three monitors with resolutions as high as 4096x2160@60Hz
    • Integrated hardware decoding for common video codecs (AVC, HEVC, and VP9)

    What we don't like about Intel Celeron J4025

    • Weak dual-core performance that struggles with heavy multitasking or more than a few browser tabs
    • Inadequate for modern gaming, even for titles from a few years ago
    • Locked multiplier prevents any overclocking to improve performance
    • Struggles with newer AV1 codec video playback, often causing stuttering above 720p
    • Performance is frequently handicapped in pre-built systems by single-channel RAM configurations

    Verdict

    The Intel Celeron J4025 is an entry-level desktop processor based on the Gemini Lake Refresh architecture (14nm). It has 2 cores and 2 threads. The base clock is 2.0 GHz, and the burst frequency is up to 2.9 GHz. It includes 4 MB of L2 cache and integrated Intel UHD Graphics 600 (250–700 MHz). It supports up to 8 GB of DDR4-2400 memory and triple monitor output at 4K resolution. A main pro is its low 10W TDP for energy-efficient operation and hardware-accelerated decoding for 4K HEVC and VP9 video. However, its cons include limited multitasking due to only two cores, poor performance in modern gaming, and its non-replaceable, soldered-on BGA design.

    Compare Intel Celeron J4025 with other processors

    1Product to compare no. 1
    VS
    2Product to compare no. 2
    VS
    3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

    Graphic comparison of Intel Celeron J4025 and other processors

    No results found