A8-3850 vs Atom C3558

A8-3850 vs Atom C3558 Performance Spectrum

A8-3850

4 / 4

2,421

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Atom C3558

4 / 4

2,431

+0.4%

Core i3-4010Y

Celeron Dual-Core T1500

Pentium Dual Core T2410

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.

A8-3850 vs Atom C3558 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.

A8-3850 vs Atom C3558: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

A8-3850

2011

Why buy it

✅66.7% more PCIe lanes (20 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6550D, while Atom C3558 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Atom C3558.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (2,421 vs 2,431).
❌525% higher power demand at 100W vs 16W.

Atom C3558

2017

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 16W instead of 100W, a 84W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while A8-3850 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike A8-3850.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom C3558 better than A8-3850?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, A8-3850 is ahead with a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom C3558 pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom C3558 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom C3558 still makes the most sense overall. Atom C3558 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark.

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

Atom C3558 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A8-3850 vs Atom C3558 Technical Specifications

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

A8-3850

The A8-3850 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 2.9 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 100 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,421 points. Launch price was $90.

Atom C3558

The Atom C3558 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 August 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB. L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1310. Thermal design power (TDP): 16 Watt. Memory support: DDR4: 2133. Passmark benchmark score: 2,431 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A8-3850 and Atom C3558 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.9 GHz on the A8-3850 versus 2.2 GHz on the Atom C3558 — a 27.5% clock advantage for the A8-3850 (base: 2.9 GHz vs 2.2 GHz). The A8-3850 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Atom C3558 uses Goldmont (2016−2017) (14 nm). In PassMark, the A8-3850 scores 2,421 against the Atom C3558's 2,431 — a 0.4% lead for the Atom C3558. L3 cache: 0 kB on the A8-3850 vs 8 MB on the Atom C3558.

Feature	A8-3850	Atom C3558
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	2.9 GHz+32%	2.2 GHz
Base Clock	2.9 GHz+32%	2.2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	8 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	8 MB+700%
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Goldmont (2016−2017)
PassMark	2,421	2,431
Geekbench 6 Single	363	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A8-3850 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Atom C3558 uses FCBGA1310 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1866 on the A8-3850 versus DDR4-2133 on the Atom C3558 — the Atom C3558 supports 14.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom C3558 supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 20 (A8-3850) vs 12 (Atom C3558) — the A8-3850 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75 (A8-3850) and Intel FCBGA1310 (Atom C3558).

Feature	A8-3850	Atom C3558
Socket	FM1	FCBGA1310
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1866	DDR4-2133+14%
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	256 GB+700%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	20+67%	12

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (A8-3850) / not specified (Atom C3558). The A8-3850 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6550D), while the Atom C3558 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A8-3850 targets Mainstream Desktop. Direct competitor: A8-3850 rivals Core i3-2105.