Atom E3827 vs Celeron 1047UE

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 E3827 vs Celeron 1047UE 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 E3827 vs Celeron 1047UE: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom E3827

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 8W instead of 512W, a 504W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (665 vs 675).

Celeron 1047UE

2013

Why buy it

✅+1.5% higher PassMark.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $100 MSRP, while Atom E3827 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌6300% higher power demand at 512W vs 8W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 1047UE better than Atom E3827?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Atom E3827 is ahead with a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1047UE pulls ahead with 1.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 1047UE is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 1047UE is the better buy right now. Celeron 1047UE comes in at an unclear MSRP at $100 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.5% better PassMark. The compromise is that Atom E3827 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (6.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron 1047UE 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 E3827 vs Celeron 1047UE Technical Specifications

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

Atom E3827

The Atom E3827 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: 1.75 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 665 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron 1047UE

The Celeron 1047UE is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 January 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 512 kB + 2 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 675 points. Launch price was $134.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Atom E3827 and Celeron 1047UE share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.75 GHz on the Atom E3827 versus 1.4 GHz on the Celeron 1047UE — a 22.2% clock advantage for the Atom E3827. The Atom E3827 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron 1047UE uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E3827 scores 665 against the Celeron 1047UE's 675 — a 1.5% lead for the Celeron 1047UE. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom E3827 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1047UE.

Feature	Atom E3827	Celeron 1047UE
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.75 GHz+25%	1.4 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	22 nm	22 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-I (2013)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	665	675+2%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	159
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	293

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E3827 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 1047UE uses BGA1023 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1333 on the Atom E3827 versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1047UE — the Celeron 1047UE supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1047UE supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom E3827) vs 16 (Celeron 1047UE) — the Celeron 1047UE offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3827) and BGA1023 (Celeron 1047UE).

Feature	Atom E3827	Celeron 1047UE
Socket	FCBGA1170	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	DDR3-1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom E3827) / VT-x (Celeron 1047UE). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom E3827) and Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1047UE) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU.