Atom N2600 vs Celeron 1017U

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 N2600 vs Celeron 1017U 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 N2600 vs Celeron 1017U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom N2600

2011

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 4W instead of 512W, a 508W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron 1017U

2013

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,508 vs 1,528).
❌12700% higher power demand at 512W vs 4W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom N2600 better than Celeron 1017U?

Yes. Atom N2600 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.9% average FPS lead across 48 shared CPU game tests in our data and 1.3% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

For gaming, this matchup is basically a tie in the data we have.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom N2600 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom N2600 still makes the most sense overall. Atom N2600 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.9% average FPS lead across 48 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron 1017U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2011). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom N2600 vs Celeron 1017U Technical Specifications

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

Atom N2600

The Atom N2600 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 December 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Cedarview-M (2011−2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 3.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,528 points. Launch price was $47.

Celeron 1017U

The Celeron 1017U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,508 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom N2600 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the Celeron 1017U's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.6 GHz on the Atom N2600 versus 1.6 GHz on the Celeron 1017U — identical boost frequencies (base: 1.6 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Atom N2600 uses the Cedarview-M (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron 1017U uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom N2600 scores 1,528 against the Celeron 1017U's 1,508 — a 1.3% lead for the Atom N2600. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom N2600 vs 2 MB on the Celeron 1017U.

Feature	Atom N2600	Celeron 1017U
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	1.6 GHz
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Cedarview-M (2011−2012)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,528+1%	1,508

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom N2600 uses the FCBGA559 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 1017U uses BGA1023 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-800 on the Atom N2600 versus DDR3-1600 on the Celeron 1017U — the Celeron 1017U supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 1017U supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 1500% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Atom N2600) vs 2 (Celeron 1017U). PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom N2600) vs 16 (Celeron 1017U) — the Celeron 1017U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel NM10 (Atom N2600) and Intel FCBGA1023 (Celeron 1017U).

Feature	Atom N2600	Celeron 1017U
Socket	FCBGA559	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-800	DDR3-1600+100%
Max RAM Capacity	2 GB	32 GB+1500%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Both include integrated graphics — Intel GMA 3600 (Atom N2600) and Intel HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron 1017U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU.