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 G1620T 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 G1620T: 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

✅Draws 8W instead of 35W, a 27W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,530 vs 1,532).
❌
2.4% HIGHER MSRP
$43 MSRPvs$42 MSRP
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G1620T can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron G1620T

2013

Why buy it

✅Costs $1 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $43 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Atom 330 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌337.5% higher power demand at 35W vs 8W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G1620T better than Atom 330?

Yes. Celeron G1620T is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron G1620T is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron G1620T is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron G1620T is the better buy right now. Celeron G1620T comes in $1 cheaper on MSRP at $42 MSRP versus $43 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 2.5% better value on MSRP (36.5 vs 35.6 PassMark/$), 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 G1620T makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom 330 vs Celeron G1620T 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 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 150.1% 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 — 700% 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+150%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	32 GB+700%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
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

At launch, the Atom 330 was priced at $43, while the Celeron G1620T came in at $42. On launch pricing ($43 vs $42), Celeron G1620T was $1 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Atom 330 delivers 35.6 pts/$ vs 36.5 pts/$ for the Celeron G1620T — making the Celeron G1620T the 2.5% better value option.

Feature	Atom 330	Celeron G1620T
MSRP	$43	$42-2%
Performance per Dollar	35.6	36.5+3%
Release Date	2008	2013

Search Atom 330 on Amazon

Search Celeron G1620T on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.