Atom E3827 vs Celeron N3000

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 N3000 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 N3000: 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

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Celeron N3000 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (665 vs 705).
❌300% higher power demand at 8W vs 2W.

Celeron N3000

2015

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.8% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 2W instead of 8W, a 6W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N3000 better than Atom E3827?

Yes. Celeron N3000 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 5.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 6% 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, Celeron N3000 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.8% 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 N3000 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 N3000 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N3000 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N3000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2013) and 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 N3000 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 N3000

The Celeron N3000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.04 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 4 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 705 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Atom E3827 and Celeron N3000 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.75 GHz on the Atom E3827 versus 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3000 — a 17.2% clock advantage for the Celeron N3000. The Atom E3827 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron N3000 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E3827 scores 665 against the Celeron N3000's 705 — a 5.8% lead for the Celeron N3000. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom E3827	Celeron N3000
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.75 GHz	2.08 GHz+19%
Base Clock	—	1.04 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB+100%
Process	22 nm	14 nm-36%
Architecture	Bay Trail-I (2013)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	665	705+6%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	160
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	290

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the FCBGA1170 socket with PCIe 2.0. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1333 on the Atom E3827 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron N3000 — the Celeron N3000 supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 4 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3827) and SoC (Celeron N3000).

Feature	Atom E3827	Celeron N3000
Socket	FCBGA1170	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	DDR3L-1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	4	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom E3827) / VT-x, VT-d (Celeron N3000). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom E3827) and Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron N3000) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N3000 targets Budget Laptop. Direct competitor: Celeron N3000 rivals AMD E2-7110.

Feature	Atom E3827	Celeron N3000
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)	Intel HD Graphics 400
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	Budget Laptop