Atom N2800 vs Core i3-2365M

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 Core i3-2365M 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 Core i3-2365M: 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 512W, a 505W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $47 MSRP, while Core i3-2365M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i3-2365M

2011

Why buy it

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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,826 vs 1,829).
❌7214.3% higher power demand at 512W vs 7W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom N2800 better than Core i3-2365M?

Yes. Atom N2800 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.2% 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 N2800 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.2% 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 N2800 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom N2800 is the better buy right now. Atom N2800 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $47 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (38.9 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Atom N2800 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 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 Core i3-2365M 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.

Core i3-2365M

The Core i3-2365M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 June 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.4 GHz, with boost up to 1.4 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,826 points. Launch price was $225.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Atom N2800 and Core i3-2365M share an identical 2-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.87 GHz on the Atom N2800 versus 1.4 GHz on the Core i3-2365M — a 28.7% clock advantage for the Atom N2800 (base: 1.86 GHz vs 1.4 GHz). The Atom N2800 uses the Cedarview-M (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Core i3-2365M uses Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Atom N2800 scores 1,829 against the Core i3-2365M's 1,826 — a 0.2% lead for the Atom N2800. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom N2800 vs 3 MB on the Core i3-2365M.

Feature	Atom N2800	Core i3-2365M
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.87 GHz+34%	1.4 GHz
Base Clock	1.86 GHz+33%	1.4 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	3 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB
Process	32 nm	32 nm
Architecture	Cedarview-M (2011−2012)	Sandy Bridge (2011−2013)
PassMark	1,829	1,826
Geekbench 6 Single	—	235

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom N2800 uses the FCBGA559 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Core i3-2365M uses BGA1023 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1066 on the Atom N2800 versus DDR3-1333 on the Core i3-2365M — the Core i3-2365M supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Core i3-2365M supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Atom N2800) vs 2 (Core i3-2365M). PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom N2800) vs 16 (Core i3-2365M) — the Core i3-2365M offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel NM10 (Atom N2800) and HM65,HM67,QM67,HM75,HM76,HM77 (Core i3-2365M).

Feature	Atom N2800	Core i3-2365M
Socket	FCBGA559	BGA1023
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	DDR3-1333+25%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	16 GB+300%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom N2800) / VT-x, EPT (Core i3-2365M). Both include integrated graphics — Intel GMA 3650 (Atom N2800) and HD Graphics 3000 (Core i3-2365M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-2365M targets Thin & Light Laptop. Direct competitor: Core i3-2365M rivals Pentium 987.