Atom C3338 vs Celeron 1037U

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 C3338 vs Celeron 1037U 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 C3338 vs Celeron 1037U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom C3338

2017

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 9W instead of 512W, a 503W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,028 vs 1,034).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 1037U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron 1037U

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.6% higher PassMark.
✅60% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 10) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge), while Atom C3338 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).
❌5588.9% higher power demand at 512W vs 9W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom C3338 better than Celeron 1037U?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Atom C3338 is ahead with a 0.3% average FPS lead across 16 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1037U pulls ahead with 0.6% better PassMark. Atom C3338 also has the bigger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1037U is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom C3338 still makes the most sense overall. Atom C3338 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 16 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Atom C3338 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2013) and 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom C3338 vs Celeron 1037U Technical Specifications

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

Atom C3338

The Atom C3338 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 22 February 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.2 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1310. Thermal design power (TDP): 8.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR4: 1866. Passmark benchmark score: 1,028 points. Launch price was $27.

Celeron 1037U

The Celeron 1037U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,034 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Atom C3338 and Celeron 1037U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Atom C3338 versus 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 1037U — a 20% clock advantage for the Atom C3338 (base: 1.5 GHz vs 1.8 GHz). The Atom C3338 uses the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron 1037U uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom C3338 scores 1,028 against the Celeron 1037U's 1,034 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron 1037U. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Atom C3338 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1037U.

Feature	Atom C3338	Celeron 1037U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz+22%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	1.8 GHz+20%
L3 Cache	4 MB+100%	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	4 MB	256K (per core)+6300%
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Goldmont (2016−2017)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,028	1,034
Geekbench 6 Single	—	324
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	626

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom C3338 uses the FCBGA1310 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 1037U uses BGA1023 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-1866 on the Atom C3338 versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1037U — the Atom C3338 supports 16.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom C3338 supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Atom C3338) vs 2 (Celeron 1037U). PCIe lanes: 10 (Atom C3338) vs 16 (Celeron 1037U) — the Celeron 1037U offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1310 (Atom C3338) and HM70,NM70,HM76 (Celeron 1037U).

Feature	Atom C3338	Celeron 1037U
Socket	FCBGA1310	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-1866+17%	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+300%	32 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	10	16+60%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom C3338) / VT-x, EPT (Celeron 1037U). The Celeron 1037U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)), while the Atom C3338 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 1037U targets Budget Mobile. Direct competitor: Celeron 1037U rivals AMD E1-2500.