Atom E3826 vs Celeron U3400

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 U3400 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 U3400: 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

✅Draws 7W instead of 18W, a 11W 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 U3400 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (545 vs 575).

Celeron U3400

2010

Why buy it

✅+5.5% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Atom E3826 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌157.1% higher power demand at 18W 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 U3400?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Atom E3826 is ahead with a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron U3400 pulls ahead with 5.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron U3400 is the stronger fit. You are getting 5.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom E3826 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Atom E3826 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron U3400 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 1.5% in the shared gaming data.

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 2010). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom E3826 vs Celeron U3400 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 U3400

The Celeron U3400 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Westmere (2010−2011) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.06 GHz, with boost up to 0.07 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1288. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-800. Passmark benchmark score: 575 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Atom E3826 and Celeron U3400 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.47 GHz on the Atom E3826 versus 0.07 GHz on the Celeron U3400 — a 181.8% clock advantage for the Atom E3826. The Atom E3826 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron U3400 uses Westmere (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E3826 scores 545 against the Celeron U3400's 575 — a 5.4% lead for the Celeron U3400. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom E3826 vs 2 MB on the Celeron U3400.

Feature	Atom E3826	Celeron U3400
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.47 GHz+2000%	0.07 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.06 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	512 kB
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-I (2013)	Westmere (2010−2011)
PassMark	545	575+6%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E3826 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron U3400 uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.