Atom E3825 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 E3825 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 E3825 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 E3825

2013

Why buy it

✅+4% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌500% higher power demand at 6W vs 1W.

Celeron J1750

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 6W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (505 vs 525).

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3825 better than Celeron J1750?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron J1750 is ahead with a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom E3825 pulls ahead with 4% better 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 still makes the most sense overall. Atom E3825 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 4% better PassMark.

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

Atom E3825 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom E3825 vs Celeron J1750 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 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

Both the Atom E3825 and Celeron J1750 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.33 GHz on the Atom E3825 versus 2.41 GHz on the Celeron J1750 — a 57.8% clock advantage for the Celeron J1750. The Atom E3825 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron J1750 uses Bay Trail-D (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E3825 scores 525 against the Celeron J1750'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 J1750.

Feature	Atom E3825	Celeron J1750
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.33 GHz	2.41 GHz+81%
Base Clock	—	2.41 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB+100%
Process	22 nm	22 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-I (2013)	Bay Trail-D (2013)
PassMark	525+4%	505
Geekbench 6 Single	—	150
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	250

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the FCBGA1170 socket with PCIe 2.0. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1066 on the Atom E3825 versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron J1750 — the Celeron J1750 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 1 (Atom E3825) vs 2 (Celeron J1750). Both provide 4 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3825) and N/A (SoC) (Celeron J1750).

Feature	Atom E3825	Celeron J1750
Socket	FCBGA1170	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066	DDR3L-1333+25%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	4	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom E3825) / VT-x (Celeron J1750). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom E3825) and HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron J1750) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J1750 targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron J1750 rivals Pentium J2850.

Feature	Atom E3825	Celeron J1750
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)	HD Graphics (Bay Trail)
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x
Target Use	—	Low Power