Atom 330 vs Celeron 1017U

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.

Atom 330 vs Celeron 1017U 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.

Atom 330 vs Celeron 1017U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom 330

2008

Why buy it

✅+1.5% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 8W instead of 512W, a 504W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $43 MSRP, while Celeron 1017U mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1017U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron 1017U

2013

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Atom 330 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,508 vs 1,530).
❌6300% higher power demand at 512W vs 8W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom 330 better than Celeron 1017U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron 1017U is ahead with a 0.8% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom 330 pulls ahead with 1.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom 330 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom 330 is the better buy right now. Atom 330 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $43 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.5% better PassMark. The compromise is that Celeron 1017U is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.8% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (35.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 1017U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom 330 vs Celeron 1017U Technical Specifications

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

Atom 330

The Atom 330 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 April 2008 (17 years ago). It is based on the Diamondville (2008−2009) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 0.1 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: PBGA437. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,530 points. Launch price was $43.

Celeron 1017U

The Celeron 1017U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,508 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom 330 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the Celeron 1017U's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 0.1 GHz on the Atom 330 versus 1.6 GHz on the Celeron 1017U — a 176.5% clock advantage for the Celeron 1017U (base: 1.6 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Atom 330 uses the Diamondville (2008−2009) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron 1017U uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom 330 scores 1,530 against the Celeron 1017U's 1,508 — a 1.4% lead for the Atom 330. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom 330 vs 2 MB on the Celeron 1017U.

Feature	Atom 330	Celeron 1017U
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	0.1 GHz	1.6 GHz+1500%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	512 kB
Process	45 nm	22 nm-51%
Architecture	Diamondville (2008−2009)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,530+1%	1,508

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom 330 uses the PBGA437 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 1017U uses BGA1023 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-533 on the Atom 330 versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1017U — the Celeron 1017U supports 200.2% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1017U supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Atom 330) vs 2 (Celeron 1017U). PCIe lanes: 0 (Atom 330) vs 16 (Celeron 1017U) — the Celeron 1017U offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel BGA437 (Atom 330) and Intel FCBGA1023 (Celeron 1017U).

Feature	Atom 330	Celeron 1017U
Socket	PBGA437	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-533	DDR3-1600+200%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	32 GB+700%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	16