Atom C3338 vs Celeron N2930

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 N2930 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 N2930: 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

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,028 vs 1,032).
❌28.6% higher power demand at 9W vs 7W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron N2930 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron N2930

2014

Why buy it

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 7W instead of 9W, a 2W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics, while Atom C3338 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2930 better than Atom C3338?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Atom C3338 is ahead with a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2930 pulls ahead with 0.4% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N2930 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N2930 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2930 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark.

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 2014). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom C3338 vs Celeron N2930 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 N2930

The Celeron N2930 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.83 GHz, with boost up to 2.16 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,032 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom C3338 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N2930 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N2930 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.2 GHz on the Atom C3338 versus 2.16 GHz on the Celeron N2930 — a 1.8% clock advantage for the Atom C3338 (base: 1.5 GHz vs 1.83 GHz). The Atom C3338 uses the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron N2930 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom C3338 scores 1,028 against the Celeron N2930's 1,032 — a 0.4% lead for the Celeron N2930. L3 cache: 4 MB on the Atom C3338 vs 0 kB on the Celeron N2930.

Feature	Atom C3338	Celeron N2930
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	2.2 GHz+2%	2.16 GHz
Base Clock	1.5 GHz	1.83 GHz+22%
L3 Cache	4 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	4 MB	512K (per core)+12700%
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Goldmont (2016−2017)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,028	1,032
Geekbench 6 Single	—	170
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	502

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom C3338 uses the FCBGA1310 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N2930 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 N2930 — 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 N2930). PCIe lanes: 10 (Atom C3338) vs 4 (Celeron N2930) — the Atom C3338 offers 6 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1310 (Atom C3338) and SoC (Celeron N2930).

Feature	Atom C3338	Celeron N2930
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) / Yes (Celeron N2930). The Celeron N2930 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics), while the Atom C3338 requires a dedicated GPU.