Atom E3845 vs Celeron 1000M

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 E3845 vs Celeron 1000M 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 E3845 vs Celeron 1000M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom E3845

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 10W instead of 512W, a 502W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron 1000M

2013

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,070 vs 1,071).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Atom E3845 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌5020% higher power demand at 512W vs 10W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3845 better than Celeron 1000M?

Yes. Atom E3845 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.1% 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 E3845 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.7% 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, Atom E3845 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom E3845 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Atom E3845 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron 1000M only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2013 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (12.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA988.

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

Atom E3845 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom E3845 vs Celeron 1000M Technical Specifications

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

Atom E3845

The Atom E3845 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 4 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 1.91 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 10 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,071 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron 1000M

The Celeron 1000M 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. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,070 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom E3845 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 1000M offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom E3845 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.91 GHz on the Atom E3845 versus 1.8 GHz on the Celeron 1000M — a 5.9% clock advantage for the Atom E3845. The Atom E3845 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron 1000M uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E3845 scores 1,071 against the Celeron 1000M's 1,070 — a 0.1% lead for the Atom E3845. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom E3845 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 1000M.

Feature	Atom E3845	Celeron 1000M
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.91 GHz+6%	1.8 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.8 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	1,071	1,070

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E3845 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 1000M uses PGA988 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1333 on the Atom E3845 versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1000M — the Celeron 1000M supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1000M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom E3845) vs 16 (Celeron 1000M) — the Celeron 1000M offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3845) and Intel FCPGA988 (Celeron 1000M).

Feature	Atom E3845	Celeron 1000M
Socket	FCBGA1170	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	DDR3-1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	32 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom E3845) and Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1000M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU.