Atom E3845 vs Celeron 2961Y

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 2961Y 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 2961Y: 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

❌Lower PassMark (1,071 vs 1,085).

Celeron 2961Y

2013

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.
✅200% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌5020% higher power demand at 512W vs 10W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3845 better than Celeron 2961Y?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Atom E3845 is ahead with a 1.9% average FPS lead across 41 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 2961Y pulls ahead with 1.3% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 2961Y is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom E3845 still makes the most sense overall. Atom E3845 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.9% average FPS lead across 41 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron 2961Y is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more room to grow and a better platform outlook.

Atom E3845 vs Celeron 2961Y 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 2961Y

The Celeron 2961Y is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 1.1 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 11.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,085 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom E3845 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 2961Y offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom E3845 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.91 GHz on the Atom E3845 versus 1.1 GHz on the Celeron 2961Y — a 53.8% clock advantage for the Atom E3845. The Atom E3845 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron 2961Y uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E3845 scores 1,071 against the Celeron 2961Y's 1,085 — a 1.3% lead for the Celeron 2961Y. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom E3845 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 2961Y.

Feature	Atom E3845	Celeron 2961Y
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.91 GHz+74%	1.1 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.1 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)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	1,071	1,085+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E3845 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 2961Y uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1333 on the Atom E3845 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 2961Y — the Celeron 2961Y supports 20% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 2961Y 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 E3845) vs 12 (Celeron 2961Y) — the Celeron 2961Y offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3845) and Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 2961Y).

Feature	Atom E3845	Celeron 2961Y
Socket	FCBGA1170	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	DDR3L-1600+20%
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	4	12+200%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom E3845) / VT-x (Celeron 2961Y). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom E3845) and HD Graphics (Haswell) (Celeron 2961Y) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 2961Y targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 2961Y rivals Pentium 2117U.