Atom E3827 vs Celeron U3600

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 U3600 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 U3600: 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

✅Better for gaming: +7.8% higher average FPS across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 8W instead of 18W, a 10W 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 U3600 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron U3600

2011

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom E3827 across 49 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (625 vs 665).
❌Launch MSRP is still $134 MSRP, while Atom E3827 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌125% higher power demand at 18W vs 8W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom E3827 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3827 better than Celeron U3600?

Yes. Atom E3827 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 7.8% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data, 6.4% 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, Atom E3827 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 7.8% more average FPS across 49 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom E3827 is the stronger fit. You are getting 6.4% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom E3827 is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. Atom E3827 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $134 MSRP, and it still gives you a 7.8% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron U3600 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 7.8% in the shared gaming data.

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) 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 U3600 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 U3600

The Celeron U3600 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 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 0.1 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: 625 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Atom E3827 and Celeron U3600 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.75 GHz on the Atom E3827 versus 0.1 GHz on the Celeron U3600 — a 178.4% clock advantage for the Atom E3827. The Atom E3827 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron U3600 uses Westmere (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E3827 scores 665 against the Celeron U3600's 625 — a 6.2% lead for the Atom E3827. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom E3827 vs 2 MB on the Celeron U3600.

Feature	Atom E3827	Celeron U3600
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.75 GHz+1650%	0.1 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.2 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	665+6%	625

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E3827 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron U3600 uses BGA1288 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.