Atom N475 vs GX-210JA

Atom N475 vs GX-210JA Performance Spectrum

Atom N475

1 / 2

405

0.0%

425

+4.9%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

About PassMark

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 N475 vs GX-210JA 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 N475 vs GX-210JA: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom N475

2010

Why buy it

✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel GMA 3150, while GX-210JA needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than GX-210JA across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (405 vs 425).
❌Launch MSRP is still $75 MSRP, while GX-210JA mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌51100% higher power demand at 512W vs 1W.

GX-210JA

2013

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +10.0% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 1W instead of 512W, a 511W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Atom N475 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is GX-210JA better than Atom N475?

Yes. GX-210JA is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 10.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 4.9% 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, GX-210JA is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 10.0% 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, GX-210JA is the stronger fit. You are getting 4.9% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

GX-210JA is the easy recommendation for a fresh desktop build. GX-210JA comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $75 MSRP, and it still gives you a 10.0% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Atom N475 only looks good on raw value math because it is a cheap legacy laptop chip, not because it is a real desktop gaming recommendation. It simply does not keep up in modern games, especially when the gap is already 10.0% in the shared gaming data.

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

GX-210JA makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 1/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom N475 vs GX-210JA Technical Specifications

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

Atom N475

The Atom N475 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 June 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Pineview (2009−2011) architecture. It features 1 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.83 GHz, with boost up to 1.83 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA559. Thermal design power (TDP): 6.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 405 points. Launch price was $75.

GX-210JA

The GX-210JA is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 23 May 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Temash (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1 GHz. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 28 nm process technology. Socket: FT3. Thermal design power (TDP): 1 MB. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 425 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom N475 packs 1 cores / 2 threads, while the GX-210JA offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the GX-210JA has 1 more core. Boost clocks reach 1.83 GHz on the Atom N475 versus 1 GHz on the GX-210JA — a 58.7% clock advantage for the Atom N475. The Atom N475 uses the Pineview (2009−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the GX-210JA uses Temash (2013) (28 nm). In PassMark, the Atom N475 scores 405 against the GX-210JA's 425 — a 4.8% lead for the GX-210JA.

Feature	Atom N475	GX-210JA
Cores / Threads	1 / 2	2 / 2+100%
Boost Clock	1.83 GHz+83%	1 GHz
Base Clock	1.83 GHz	—
L3 Cache	0 kB	—
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+51100%	1 MB
Process	45 nm	28 nm-38%
Architecture	Pineview (2009−2011)	Temash (2013)
PassMark	405	425+5%