Atom E3826 vs Celeron 925

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 E3826 vs Celeron 925 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 E3826 vs Celeron 925: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom E3826

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +7.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 7W instead of 35W, a 28W 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 925 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron 925

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom E3826 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (525 vs 545).
❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Atom E3826 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌400% higher power demand at 35W vs 7W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom E3826 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3826 better than Celeron 925?

Yes. Atom E3826 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 3.8% 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 E3826 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.6% 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, Atom E3826 is the stronger fit. You are getting 3.8% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom E3826 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Atom E3826 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $100 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 925 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on that older platform.

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

Atom E3826 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011). That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom E3826 vs Celeron 925 Technical Specifications

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

Atom E3826

The Atom E3826 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: 1.47 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 545 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron 925

The Celeron 925 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 45 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 525 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom E3826 is built on the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Atom E3826 scores 545 against the Celeron 925's 525 — a 3.7% lead for the Atom E3826. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom E3826 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron 925.

Feature	Atom E3826	Celeron 925
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	—
Boost Clock	1.47 GHz	—
Base Clock	—	2.3 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	—
Process	22 nm-51%	45 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-I (2013)	—
PassMark	545+4%	525

🧠

Memory & Platform

Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1066 on the Atom E3826 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron 925 — the Celeron 925 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom E3826 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Atom E3826) vs 1 (Celeron 925). PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom E3826) vs 0 (Celeron 925) — the Atom E3826 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3826) and GL40,GM45 (Celeron 925).

Feature	Atom E3826	Celeron 925
Socket	FCBGA1170	—
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1066	DDR3-1333+25%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB+100%	4 GB
RAM Channels	2+100%	1
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	4	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom E3826) / No (Celeron 925). The Atom E3826 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)), while the Celeron 925 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 925 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 925 rivals Pentium 4 2.80.