Atom D2500 vs Celeron U3600

CPU

GPU

Atom D2500

2 Cores2 Thrd10 WWMax: 1.87 GHz2011

Celeron U3600

2 Cores2 Thrd18 WWMax: 0.1 GHz2011

Performance Spectrum - CPU

Atom D2500

2 / 2

605

0.0%

625

+3.3%

About PassMark

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Atom D2500 is positioned at rank 79 and the Celeron U3600 is on rank 1213, so the Atom D2500 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Atom D2500

#18

Ryzen 5 8500G

MSRP: $179|Avg: $150

99%

#67

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

242%

#68

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

239%

#69

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

219%

#70

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

218%

#71

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

216%

#73

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

209%

#74

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

200%

#75

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

200%

#76

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

195%

#79

Atom D2500

MSRP: $42|Avg: N/A

100%

#88

Core 2 Duo T7500

MSRP: $316|Avg: $5

95%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron U3600

#1201

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

6296%

#1202

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

6204%

#1203

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

5695%

#1204

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

5670%

#1205

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

5618%

#1207

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

5425%

#1208

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

5202%

#1209

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

5193%

#1210

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

5054%

#1213

Celeron U3600

MSRP: $134|Avg: $134

100%

#1216

Core 2 Quad Q9000

MSRP: $348|Avg: $15

98%

#1217

Core i5-2537M

MSRP: $250|Avg: N/A

98%

#1218

Core i7-720QM

MSRP: $364|Avg: N/A

98%

#1219

Pentium U5400

MSRP: $289|Avg: $214

95%

#1220

Pentium T2330

MSRP: $150|Avg: $7

95%

#1221

Z-01

MSRP: $50|Avg: $10

92%

#1222

Pentium T2310

MSRP: $150|Avg: $14

89%

#1223

Celeron SU2300

MSRP: $134|Avg: $134

87%

#1224

Core i5-560UM

MSRP: $250|Avg: N/A

87%

#1225

Core i7-660UM

MSRP: $317|Avg: N/A

86%

#1226

C-30

MSRP: $50|Avg: $15

86%

#1228

Core i7-620UM

MSRP: $278|Avg: N/A

84%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Trade-off: The Atom D2500 leads in gaming performance. However, the Celeron U3600 is the stronger candidate for professional workloads, offering 3.3% greater multi-core processing power.

Insight	Atom D2500	Celeron U3600
Gaming	✅ Superior gaming performance	❌ Lower gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	✅ More affordable ($42)	⚠️ Higher cost ($134)
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Cedarview (2011−2012) / 32 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Westmere (2010−2011) / 32 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Efficiency: Even within a comparison of older hardware, the Atom D2500 stands out as the superior choice. It is effectively 69% cheaper ($42 vs $134) while identifying as the stronger performer.

Insight	Atom D2500	Celeron U3600
Cost Efficiency	✅ Better overall value (+209%)	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅ More affordable ($42)	⚠️ Higher cost ($134)

Performance Check

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Atom D2500 Benchmark Check

Celeron U3600 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Atom D2500 and Celeron U3600

Atom D2500

The Atom D2500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 November 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Cedarview (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 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): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 605 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron U3600

The Celeron U3600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 0.1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 625 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Atom D2500 and Celeron U3600 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.87 GHz on the Atom D2500 versus 0.1 GHz on the Celeron U3600 — a 179.7% clock advantage for the Atom D2500 (base: 1.86 GHz vs 1.2 GHz). The Atom D2500 uses the Cedarview (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron U3600 uses Westmere (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Atom D2500 scores 605 against the Celeron U3600's 625 — a 3.3% lead for the Celeron U3600. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom D2500 vs 2 MB on the Celeron U3600.

Feature	Atom D2500	Celeron U3600
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.87 GHz+1770%	0.1 GHz
Base Clock	1.86 GHz+55%	1.2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Cedarview (2011−2012)	Westmere (2010−2011)
PassMark	605	625+3%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom D2500 uses the FCBGA559 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron U3600 uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.