Atom E3825 vs Celeron 807

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 807 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 807: 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 17W, a 11W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (525 vs 535).

Celeron 807

2012

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $70 MSRP, while Atom E3825 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌183.3% higher power demand at 17W vs 6W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 807 better than Atom E3825?

Yes. Celeron 807 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.9% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 807 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.1% 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 807 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.9% better PassMark, backed by 1 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 807 is the better buy right now. Celeron 807 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $70 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (7.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 E3825 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2012). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom E3825 vs Celeron 807 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 807

The Celeron 807 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.5 GHz. L3 cache: 1.5 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 535 points. Launch price was $70.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom E3825 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron 807 offers 1 cores / 2 threads — the Atom E3825 has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.33 GHz on the Atom E3825 versus 1.5 GHz on the Celeron 807 — a 12% clock advantage for the Celeron 807. The Atom E3825 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron 807 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E3825 scores 525 against the Celeron 807's 535 — a 1.9% lead for the Celeron 807. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom E3825 vs 1.5 MB (total) on the Celeron 807.

Feature	Atom E3825	Celeron 807
Cores / Threads	2 / 2+100%	1 / 2
Boost Clock	1.33 GHz	1.5 GHz+13%
Base Clock	—	1.5 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1.5 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-I (2013)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	525	535+2%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E3825 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 807 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1066 on the Atom E3825 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 807 — the Celeron 807 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 807 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Atom E3825) vs 2 (Celeron 807). PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom E3825) vs 0 (Celeron 807) — the Atom E3825 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3825) and QM67,QS67,HM67,HM65 (Celeron 807).

Feature	Atom E3825	Celeron 807
Socket	FCBGA1170	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066	DDR3-1333+25%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	4	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom E3825) / VT-x (Celeron 807). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom E3825) and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 807) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 807 targets Mobile.

Feature	Atom E3825	Celeron 807
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)	HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x
Target Use	—	Mobile