Atom E3845 vs Celeron B840

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 B840 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 B840: 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

Trade-offs

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

Celeron B840

2011

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,065 vs 1,071).
❌Launch MSRP is still $86 MSRP, while Atom E3845 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3845 better than Celeron B840?

Yes. Atom E3845 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.6% 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, Atom E3845 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.8% 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, Atom E3845 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% 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 $86 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Celeron B840 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2011 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (12.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011) and 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 B840 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 B840

The Celeron B840 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 1.9 GHz, with boost up to 1.9 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,065 points. Launch price was $86.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom E3845 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron B840 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom E3845 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.91 GHz on the Atom E3845 versus 1.9 GHz on the Celeron B840 — a 0.5% clock advantage for the Atom E3845. The Atom E3845 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron B840 uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E3845 scores 1,071 against the Celeron B840's 1,065 — a 0.6% lead for the Atom E3845. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom E3845 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron B840.

Feature	Atom E3845	Celeron B840
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.91 GHz	1.9 GHz
Base Clock	—	1.9 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	1,071	1,065
Geekbench 6 Single	—	450
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	790

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom E3845 uses the FCBGA1170 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron B840 uses PGA988 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3L-1333 memory speed. The Celeron B840 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 16 (Celeron B840) — the Celeron B840 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3845) and HM65,HM67,QM67 (Celeron B840).

Feature	Atom E3845	Celeron B840
Socket	FCBGA1170	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333	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 E3845) / true (Celeron B840). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom E3845) and Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron B840) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron B840 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron B840 rivals Pentium B940.

Feature	Atom E3845	Celeron B840
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)	Intel HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	true
Target Use	—	Budget