Atom C3508 vs Atom N2800

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 C3508 vs Atom N2800 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 C3508 vs Atom N2800: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom C3508

2017

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅200% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌60.7% higher power demand at 11.25W vs 7W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom N2800 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Atom N2800

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 7W instead of 11W, a 4W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel GMA 3650, while Atom C3508 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,829 vs 1,831).
❌Launch MSRP is still $47 MSRP, while Atom C3508 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom N2800 better than Atom C3508?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Atom N2800 is ahead with a 0.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom C3508 pulls ahead with 0.1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom C3508 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom N2800 is the better buy right now. Atom N2800 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $47 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. The compromise is that Atom C3508 is still stronger for heavier multi-core work with 0.1% better PassMark. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (38.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 C3508 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom C3508 vs Atom N2800 Technical Specifications

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

Atom C3508

The Atom C3508 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 August 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB. L2 cache: 8 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1310. Thermal design power (TDP): 11.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR4: 1866. Passmark benchmark score: 1,831 points. Launch price was $69.

Atom N2800

The Atom N2800 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Cedarview-M (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 1.87 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 6.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,829 points. Launch price was $47.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom C3508 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Atom N2800 offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Atom C3508 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Atom C3508 versus 1.87 GHz on the Atom N2800 — a 15.6% clock advantage for the Atom N2800 (base: 1.6 GHz vs 1.86 GHz). The Atom C3508 uses the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture (14 nm), while the Atom N2800 uses Cedarview-M (2011−2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Atom C3508 scores 1,831 against the Atom N2800's 1,829 — a 0.1% lead for the Atom C3508. L3 cache: 8 MB on the Atom C3508 vs 0 kB on the Atom N2800.

Feature	Atom C3508	Atom N2800
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	1.87 GHz+17%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	1.86 GHz+16%
L3 Cache	8 MB	0 kB
L2 Cache	8 MB	512K (per core)+6300%
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Goldmont (2016−2017)	Cedarview-M (2011−2012)
PassMark	1,831	1,829

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom C3508 uses the FCBGA1310 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Atom N2800 uses FCBGA559 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-1866 on the Atom C3508 versus DDR3-1066 on the Atom N2800 — the Atom C3508 supports 75% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom C3508 supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 6300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Atom C3508) vs 1 (Atom N2800). PCIe lanes: 12 (Atom C3508) vs 4 (Atom N2800) — the Atom C3508 offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1310 (Atom C3508) and Intel NM10 (Atom N2800).

Feature	Atom C3508	Atom N2800
Socket	FCBGA1310	FCBGA559
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-1866+75%	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB+6300%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	12+200%	4