Atom E3827 vs Celeron 857
Atom E3827
Celeron 857
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Atom E3827 is positioned at rank 953 and the Celeron 857 is on rank 1201, so the Atom E3827 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Atom E3827
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 857
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Atom E3827 | Celeron 857 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-I (2013) / 22 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Atom E3827 | Celeron 857 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅ More affordable ($0) | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Atom E3827 and Celeron 857
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 857
The Celeron 857 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 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: 705 points. Launch price was $134.
Processing Power
Both the Atom E3827 and Celeron 857 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.75 GHz on the Atom E3827 versus 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 857 — a 37.3% clock advantage for the Atom E3827. The Atom E3827 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron 857 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E3827 scores 665 against the Celeron 857's 705 — a 5.8% lead for the Celeron 857. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom E3827 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 857.
| Feature | Atom E3827 | Celeron 857 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.75 GHz+46% | 1.2 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 0 kB | 2 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 | 665 | 705+6% |
Memory & Platform
The Atom E3827 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 857 uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3L-1333 memory speed. The Celeron 857 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom E3827) vs 16 (Celeron 857) — the Celeron 857 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3827) and HM65,HM67 (Celeron 857).
| Feature | Atom E3827 | Celeron 857 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCBGA1170 | BGA1023 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3L-1333 | DDR3-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 8 GB | 16 GB+100% |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| PCIe Lanes | 4 | 16+300% |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Atom E3827) / VT-x (Celeron 857). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom E3827) and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 857) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 857 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 857 rivals Pentium 967.
| Feature | Atom E3827 | Celeron 857 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | Budget |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Atom E3827 and Celeron 857
