Atom E3825 vs Celeron 570

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 E3825 vs Celeron 570 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 E3825 vs Celeron 570: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom E3825

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 31W, a 25W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail), while Celeron 570 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron 570

2008

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (505 vs 525).
❌Launch MSRP is still $134 MSRP, while Atom E3825 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌416.7% higher power demand at 31W vs 6W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom E3825 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3825 better than Celeron 570?

Yes. Atom E3825 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you 4% better PassMark and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Atom E3825 has the edge because it leads the single-thread side of this matchup with 4% stronger overall PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom E3825 is the stronger fit. You are getting 4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom E3825 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Atom E3825 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you 4.0% higher PassMark. Celeron 570 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2008 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (3.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA478.

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

Atom E3825 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom E3825 vs Celeron 570 Technical Specifications

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

Atom E3825

The Atom E3825 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 October 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.33 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 525 points. Launch price was $73.

Celeron 570

The Celeron 570 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.26 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 31 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 505 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom E3825 is built on the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Atom E3825 scores 525 against the Celeron 570's 505 — a 3.9% lead for the Atom E3825. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom E3825 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 570.

Feature	Atom E3825	Celeron 570
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	—
Boost Clock	1.33 GHz	—
Base Clock	—	2.26 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	—
Process	22 nm-66%	65 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-I (2013)	—
PassMark	525+4%	505

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E3825 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 570 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1066 on the Atom E3825 versus DDR2-667 on the Celeron 570 — the Atom E3825 supports 59.8% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom E3825 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Atom E3825) vs 2 (Celeron 570). PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom E3825) vs 0 (Celeron 570) — the Atom E3825 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3825) and GL40,GM45 (Celeron 570).

Feature	Atom E3825	Celeron 570
Socket	FCBGA1170	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066+60%	DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+100%	4 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	4	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom E3825) / No (Celeron 570). The Atom E3825 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Celeron 570 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 570 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 570 rivals Pentium T2310.