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 N2800 vs Celeron G3900TE 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 N2800 vs Celeron G3900TE: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom N2800

2011

Why buy it

✅Draws 7W instead of 35W, a 28W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,829 vs 1,850).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 38.9 vs 44.0 PassMark/$ ($47 MSRP vs $42 MSRP).

Celeron G3900TE

2015

Why buy it

✅Costs $5 less on MSRP ($42 MSRP vs $47 MSRP).
✅Delivers 13.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 44.0 vs 38.9 PassMark/$ ($42 MSRP vs $47 MSRP).
✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌400% higher power demand at 35W vs 7W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G3900TE better than Atom N2800?

Yes. Celeron G3900TE is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1.1% 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, Celeron G3900TE is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.9% 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, Celeron G3900TE is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron G3900TE is the better buy right now. Celeron G3900TE comes in $5 cheaper on MSRP at $42 MSRP versus $47 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 13.2% better value on MSRP (44.0 vs 38.9 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron G3900TE makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2011) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom N2800 vs Celeron G3900TE Technical Specifications

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

Atom N2800

The Atom N2800 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 1.86 GHz, with boost up to 1.87 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 6.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,829 points. Launch price was $47.

Celeron G3900TE

The Celeron G3900TE is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,850 points. Launch price was $42.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom N2800 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the Celeron G3900TE's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.87 GHz on the Atom N2800 versus 2.3 GHz on the Celeron G3900TE — a 20.6% clock advantage for the Celeron G3900TE. The Atom N2800 uses the Cedarview-M (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron G3900TE uses Skylake (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Atom N2800 scores 1,829 against the Celeron G3900TE's 1,850 — a 1.1% lead for the Celeron G3900TE. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom N2800 vs 2 MB on the Celeron G3900TE.

Feature	Atom N2800	Celeron G3900TE
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.87 GHz	2.3 GHz+23%
Base Clock	1.86 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB
Process	32 nm	14 nm-56%
Architecture	Cedarview-M (2011−2012)	Skylake (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,829	1,850+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	514
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	903

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom N2800 uses the FCBGA559 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron G3900TE uses LGA1151 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the Atom N2800 versus DDR4-2133 on the Celeron G3900TE — the Celeron G3900TE supports 100.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron G3900TE supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 1500% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Atom N2800) vs 2 (Celeron G3900TE). PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom N2800) vs 16 (Celeron G3900TE) — the Celeron G3900TE offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel NM10 (Atom N2800) and H110,Q170 (Celeron G3900TE).

Feature	Atom N2800	Celeron G3900TE
Socket	FCBGA559	LGA1151
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	DDR4-2133+100%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	64 GB+1500%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom N2800) / VT-x, VT-d (Celeron G3900TE). Both include integrated graphics — Intel GMA 3650 (Atom N2800) and Intel HD Graphics 510 (Celeron G3900TE) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G3900TE targets Embedded. Direct competitor: Celeron G3900TE rivals Pentium G4400T.

Feature	Atom N2800	Celeron G3900TE
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel GMA 3650	Intel HD Graphics 510
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	Embedded

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Atom N2800 was priced at $47, while the Celeron G3900TE came in at $42. On launch pricing ($47 vs $42), Celeron G3900TE was $5 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Atom N2800 delivers 38.9 pts/$ vs 44.0 pts/$ for the Celeron G3900TE — making the Celeron G3900TE the 12.4% better value option.

Feature	Atom N2800	Celeron G3900TE
MSRP	$47	$42-11%
Performance per Dollar	38.9	44.0+13%
Release Date	2011	2015

Search Atom N2800 on Amazon

Search Celeron G3900TE on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.