Atom C3338 vs Celeron 3205U

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 3205U 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 3205U: 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

❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron 3205U can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron 3205U

2015

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,025 vs 1,028).
❌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 3205U?

Yes. Atom C3338 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.3% 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, Atom C3338 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% 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, Atom C3338 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB).

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 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 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 2015), 100% larger total L3 cache (4 MB vs 2 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom C3338 vs Celeron 3205U 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 3205U

The Celeron 3205U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,025 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Atom C3338 and Celeron 3205U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Atom C3338 versus 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 3205U — a 37.8% clock advantage for the Atom C3338 (base: 1.5 GHz vs 1.5 GHz). The Atom C3338 uses the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron 3205U uses Broadwell-U (2015) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Atom C3338 scores 1,028 against the Celeron 3205U's 1,025 — a 0.3% lead for the Atom C3338. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Atom C3338 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 3205U.

Feature	Atom C3338	Celeron 3205U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz+47%	1.5 GHz
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	4 MB+100%	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	4 MB	256K (per core)+6300%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Goldmont (2016−2017)	Broadwell-U (2015)
PassMark	1,028	1,025
Geekbench 6 Single	—	287
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	483

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom C3338 uses the FCBGA1310 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 3205U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-1866 on the Atom C3338 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3205U — 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 16 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Atom C3338) vs 2 (Celeron 3205U). PCIe lanes: 10 (Atom C3338) vs 16 (Celeron 3205U) — the Celeron 3205U offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1310 (Atom C3338) and Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3205U).

Feature	Atom C3338	Celeron 3205U
Socket	FCBGA1310	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-1866+17%	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+700%	16 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	10	16+60%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom C3338) / VT-x (Celeron 3205U). The Celeron 3205U includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Broadwell)), while the Atom C3338 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3205U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3205U rivals Pentium 2117U.