Atom E3827 vs Celeron 857

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 857 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 857: 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 17W, a 9W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron 857 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (665 vs 705).

Celeron 857

2011

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $134 MSRP, while Atom E3827 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌112.5% higher power demand at 17W vs 8W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 857 better than Atom E3827?

Yes. Celeron 857 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 4.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron 857 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.4% 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, Celeron 857 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 857 is the better buy right now. Celeron 857 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $134 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (5.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Atom E3827 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom E3827 vs Celeron 857 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 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 — 100% 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	Yes	No
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