Atom 330 vs Celeron G1620T

Atom 330

2 Cores4 Thrd8 WWMax: 0.1 GHz2008

Celeron G1620T

2 Cores2 Thrd35 WWMax: 2.4 GHz2013

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Atom 330

2 / 4

1,530

0.0%

1,532

+0.1%

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Atom 330 is positioned at rank 39 and the Celeron G1620T is on rank 533, so the Atom 330 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Atom 330

#10

Ryzen 7 260

MSRP: $199|Avg: $70

93%

#27

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

192%

#28

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

189%

#29

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

173%

#30

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

173%

#31

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

171%

#33

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

165%

#34

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

158%

#35

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

158%

#36

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

154%

#39

Atom 330

MSRP: $43|Avg: $30

100%

#43

Core 2 Duo SU7300

MSRP: $289|Avg: N/A

98%

#51

Celeron N2807

MSRP: $107|Avg: $60

91%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron G1620T

Ryzen 9 7950X

MSRP: $194|Avg: $20

8545%

Core i9-10900T

MSRP: $120|Avg: $5

8074%

Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE

MSRP: $423|Avg: $5

5862%

Ryzen Threadripper 3960X

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $85

1766%

Ryzen 9 9950X

MSRP: $649|Avg: $129

1399%

Ryzen 5 8400F

MSRP: $303|Avg: $55

1224%

Ryzen 7 PRO 2700

MSRP: $299|Avg: $60

701%

Ryzen 5 2600X

MSRP: $229|Avg: $55

692%

Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G

MSRP: $150|Avg: $60

630%

#10

Core Ultra 5 245KF

MSRP: $294|Avg: $189

630%

#11

Ryzen 5 5500

MSRP: $159|Avg: $85

623%

#12

Ryzen 5 3600

MSRP: $199|Avg: $80

606%

#13

Core i3-9100E

MSRP: $202|Avg: $30

598%

#14

Core Ultra 5 245K

MSRP: $319|Avg: $200

595%

#15

Core i3-8300T

MSRP: $138|Avg: $25

590%

#375

Ryzen Embedded V2546

MSRP: $300|Avg: $300

100%

#376

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7945WX

MSRP: $1399|Avg: $1399

98%

#377

Core i3-9100HL

MSRP: $225|Avg: $100

95%

#378

Core i9-12900TE

MSRP: $494|Avg: $664

94%

#533

Celeron G1620T

MSRP: $42|Avg: $15

100%

#536

Pentium G4400T

MSRP: $64|Avg: $75

100%

#539

Athlon X4 850

MSRP: $77|Avg: $20

98%

#541

FX-6350

MSRP: $132|Avg: $55

96%

#542

Celeron G470

MSRP: $35|Avg: $10

96%

#543

Pentium G3220

MSRP: $54|Avg: $15

96%

#545

Athlon 5370

MSRP: $55|Avg: $15

95%

#548

Core i3-6100

MSRP: $125|Avg: $30

94%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Leadership: The Celeron G1620T delivers superior performance across the board. It outperforms the Atom 330 in both compute-intensive tasks (0.1% faster) and gaming workloads.

Insight	Atom 330	Celeron G1620T
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	⚠️ Higher cost ($30)	✅ More affordable ($15)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Diamondville (2008−2009) / 45 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) / 22 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Efficiency: Even within a comparison of older hardware, the Celeron G1620T stands out as the superior choice. It is effectively 50% cheaper ($15 vs $30) while identifying as the stronger performer.

Insight	Atom 330	Celeron G1620T
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+100%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️ Higher cost ($30)	✅ More affordable ($15)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Atom 330 Benchmark Check

Celeron G1620T Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Atom 330 and Celeron G1620T

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 G1620T

The Celeron G1620T is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,532 points. Launch price was $42.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom 330 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the Celeron G1620T's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 0.1 GHz on the Atom 330 versus 2.4 GHz on the Celeron G1620T — a 184% clock advantage for the Celeron G1620T (base: 1.6 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Atom 330 uses the Diamondville (2008−2009) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron G1620T uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom 330 scores 1,530 against the Celeron G1620T's 1,532 — a 0.1% lead for the Celeron G1620T. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom 330 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1620T.

Feature	Atom 330	Celeron G1620T
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	0.1 GHz	2.4 GHz+2300%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	2.4 GHz+50%
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	45 nm	22 nm-51%
Architecture	Diamondville (2008−2009)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,530	1,532
Geekbench 6 Single	—	374
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	701

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom 330 uses the PBGA437 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron G1620T uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-533 on the Atom 330 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron G1620T — the Celeron G1620T supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron G1620T supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Atom 330) vs 2 (Celeron G1620T). PCIe lanes: 0 (Atom 330) vs 16 (Celeron G1620T) — the Celeron G1620T offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel BGA437 (Atom 330) and H61,B75,H77,Z77 (Celeron G1620T).

Feature	Atom 330	Celeron G1620T
Socket	PBGA437	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-533	DDR3-1333+50%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	32 GB+700%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	❌	✅
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom 330) / VT-x (Celeron G1620T). The Celeron G1620T includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Atom 330 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1620T targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G1620T rivals Pentium G2020T.

Feature	Atom 330	Celeron G1620T
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x
Target Use	—	Budget

💰

Value Analysis

The Atom 330 launched at $43 MSRP, while the Celeron G1620T debuted at $42. At current prices ($30 vs $15), the Celeron G1620T is $15 cheaper. In terms of value (PassMark points per dollar), the Atom 330 delivers 51.0 pts/$ vs 102.1 pts/$ for the Celeron G1620T — making the Celeron G1620T the 66.8% better value option.