Atom C3338 vs Celeron J1850

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 J1850 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 J1850: 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).
✅150% more PCIe lanes (10 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,028 vs 1,035).
❌350% higher power demand at 9W vs 2W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron J1850 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron J1850

2013

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 2W instead of 9W, a 7W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Atom C3338 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 4 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $82 MSRP, while Atom C3338 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J1850 better than Atom C3338?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Atom C3338 is ahead with 10% higher max boost clock. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron J1850 pulls ahead with 0.7% 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 J1850 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron J1850 is the better buy right now. Celeron J1850 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $82 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.7% better PassMark. The compromise is that Atom C3338 is still the better pure gaming CPU with 10% higher max boost clock. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (12.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

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 J1850 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 J1850

The Celeron J1850 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-D (2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,035 points. Launch price was $82.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom C3338 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron J1850 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron J1850 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Atom C3338 versus 2 GHz on the Celeron J1850 — a 9.5% clock advantage for the Atom C3338 (base: 1.5 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Atom C3338 uses the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron J1850 uses Bay Trail-D (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom C3338 scores 1,028 against the Celeron J1850's 1,035 — a 0.7% lead for the Celeron J1850. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Atom C3338 vs 2 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1850.

Feature	Atom C3338	Celeron J1850
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz+10%	2 GHz
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	2 GHz+33%
L3 Cache	4 MB+100%	2 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	4 MB+100%	2 MB
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Goldmont (2016−2017)	Bay Trail-D (2013)
PassMark	1,028	1,035
Geekbench 6 Single	—	180
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	450

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom C3338 uses the FCBGA1310 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron J1850 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-1866 on the Atom C3338 versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron J1850 — the Atom C3338 supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom C3338 supports up to 128 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 1500% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Atom C3338) vs 2 (Celeron J1850). PCIe lanes: 10 (Atom C3338) vs 4 (Celeron J1850) — the Atom C3338 offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1310 (Atom C3338) and N/A (SoC) (Celeron J1850).

Feature	Atom C3338	Celeron J1850
Socket	FCBGA1310	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-1866+40%	DDR3L-1333
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB+1500%	8 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	10+150%	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom C3338) / VT-x (Celeron J1850). The Celeron J1850 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Atom C3338 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J1850 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J1850 rivals Pentium J2900.