Atom C3508 vs Celeron G3900TE

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 Celeron G3900TE 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 Celeron G3900TE: 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

✅+300% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 2 MB).
✅Draws 11W instead of 35W, a 24W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,831 vs 1,850).
❌No integrated graphics, while Celeron G3900TE can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Celeron G3900TE

2015

Why buy it

✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 510, while Atom C3508 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (2 MB vs 8 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while Atom C3508 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌211.1% higher power demand at 35W vs 11.25W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G3900TE better than Atom C3508?

Yes. Celeron G3900TE is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron G3900TE is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.1% 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, Celeron G3900TE is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron G3900TE is the better buy right now. Celeron G3900TE comes in at an unclear MSRP at $42 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (44.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 2015) and 300% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 2 MB). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom C3508 vs Celeron G3900TE 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.

Celeron G3900TE

The Celeron G3900TE is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,850 points. Launch price was $42.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom C3508 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron G3900TE offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom C3508 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Atom C3508 versus 2.3 GHz on the Celeron G3900TE — a 35.9% clock advantage for the Celeron G3900TE. The Atom C3508 uses the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron G3900TE uses Skylake (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Atom C3508 scores 1,831 against the Celeron G3900TE's 1,850 — a 1% lead for the Celeron G3900TE. L3 cache: 8 MB on the Atom C3508 vs 2 MB on the Celeron G3900TE.

Feature	Atom C3508	Celeron G3900TE
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	2.3 GHz+44%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	—
L3 Cache	8 MB+300%	2 MB
L2 Cache	8 MB+1500%	512 kB
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Goldmont (2016−2017)	Skylake (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,831	1,850+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	514
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	903

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom C3508 uses the FCBGA1310 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron G3900TE uses LGA1151 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-1866 on the Atom C3508 versus DDR4-2133 on the Celeron G3900TE — the Celeron G3900TE supports 14.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom C3508 supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 64 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 12 (Atom C3508) vs 16 (Celeron G3900TE) — the Celeron G3900TE offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1310 (Atom C3508) and H110,Q170 (Celeron G3900TE).

Feature	Atom C3508	Celeron G3900TE
Socket	FCBGA1310	LGA1151
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-1866	DDR4-2133+14%
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB+300%	64 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	12	16+33%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom C3508) / VT-x, VT-d (Celeron G3900TE). The Celeron G3900TE includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 510), while the Atom C3508 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G3900TE targets Embedded. Direct competitor: Celeron G3900TE rivals Pentium G4400T.