Atom D510 vs Celeron J1750

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 D510 vs Celeron J1750 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 D510 vs Celeron J1750: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom D510

2009

Why buy it

✅+40% higher Geekbench multi-core.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (130 vs 150).
❌1200% higher power demand at 13W vs 1W.

Celeron J1750

2013

Why buy it

✅+15.4% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Draws 1W instead of 13W, a 12W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (250 vs 350).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron J1750 better than Atom D510?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron J1750 is ahead with a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom D510 pulls ahead with 40% better Geekbench multi-core.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom D510 is the stronger fit. You are getting 40% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron J1750 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron J1750 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron J1750 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom D510 vs Celeron J1750 Technical Specifications

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

Atom D510

The Atom D510 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 21 December 2009 (15 years ago). It is based on the Pineview (2009−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.66 GHz, with boost up to 1.67 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 13 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 525 points. Launch price was $97.

Celeron J1750

The Celeron J1750 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 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.41 GHz, with boost up to 2.41 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $72.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom D510 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the Celeron J1750's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.67 GHz on the Atom D510 versus 2.41 GHz on the Celeron J1750 — a 36.3% clock advantage for the Celeron J1750 (base: 1.66 GHz vs 2.41 GHz). The Atom D510 uses the Pineview (2009−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Celeron J1750 uses Bay Trail-D (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom D510 scores 525 against the Celeron J1750's 505 — a 3.9% lead for the Atom D510. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 130 vs 150, a 14.3% lead for the Celeron J1750 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 350 vs 250 (33.3% advantage for the Atom D510). L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom D510 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron J1750.

Feature	Atom D510	Celeron J1750
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.67 GHz	2.41 GHz+44%
Base Clock	1.66 GHz	2.41 GHz+45%
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB+100%
Process	45 nm	22 nm-51%
Architecture	Pineview (2009−2011)	Bay Trail-D (2013)
PassMark	525+4%	505
Geekbench 6 Single	130	150+15%
Geekbench 6 Multi	350+40%	250

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom D510 uses the FCBGA559 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron J1750 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR2-800 on the Atom D510 versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron J1750 — the Celeron J1750 supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron J1750 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Atom D510) vs 2 (Celeron J1750). Both provide 4 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: NM10 (Atom D510) and N/A (SoC) (Celeron J1750).

Feature	Atom D510	Celeron J1750
Socket	FCBGA559	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR2-800	DDR3L-1333+67%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: None (Atom D510) vs VT-x (Celeron J1750). Both include integrated graphics — Intel GMA 3150 (Atom D510) and HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron J1750) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Atom D510 targets Nettop, Celeron J1750 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J1750 rivals Pentium J2850.