Atom E3845 vs Celeron N2815

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 N2815 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 N2815: 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

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

❌900% higher power demand at 10W vs 1W.

Celeron N2815

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 1W instead of 10W, a 9W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,068 vs 1,071).

Quick Answers

So, is Atom E3845 better than Celeron N2815?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N2815 is ahead with a 1.8% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom E3845 pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark.

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 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 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 0.3% better PassMark.

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 N2815 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 N2815

The Celeron N2815 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 2.13 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1066. Passmark benchmark score: 1,068 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom E3845 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron N2815 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom E3845 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.91 GHz on the Atom E3845 versus 2.13 GHz on the Celeron N2815 — a 10.9% clock advantage for the Celeron N2815. The Atom E3845 uses the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron N2815 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom E3845 scores 1,071 against the Celeron N2815's 1,068 — a 0.3% lead for the Atom E3845. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom E3845 vs 1 MB on the Celeron N2815.

Feature	Atom E3845	Celeron N2815
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.91 GHz	2.13 GHz+12%
Base Clock	—	1.86 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB+100%
Process	22 nm	22 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-I (2013)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,071	1,068

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both processors use the FCBGA1170 socket with PCIe 2.0. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1333 on the Atom E3845 versus 1066 on the Celeron N2815 — the Atom E3845 supports 25% 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 E3845) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2815).

Feature	Atom E3845	Celeron N2815
Socket	FCBGA1170	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1333+25%	1066
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 E3845) / true (Celeron N2815). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom E3845) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2815) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N2815 rivals AMD A4-1250.