Atom x5-E3930 vs Celeron 3755U

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 x5-E3930 vs Celeron 3755U 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 x5-E3930 vs Celeron 3755U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom x5-E3930

2016

Why buy it

✅Draws 7W instead of 15W, a 9W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron 3755U

2015

Why buy it

✅200% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,182 vs 1,185).
❌130.8% higher power demand at 15W vs 6.5W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom x5-E3930 better than Celeron 3755U?

Yes. Atom x5-E3930 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.3% 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 x5-E3930 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.7% 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 x5-E3930 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Atom x5-E3930 still makes the most sense overall. Atom x5-E3930 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Atom x5-E3930 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2015) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom x5-E3930 vs Celeron 3755U Technical Specifications

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

Atom x5-E3930

The Atom x5-E3930 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.3 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 7 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 1,185 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron 3755U

The Celeron 3755U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,182 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Atom x5-E3930 and Celeron 3755U share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Atom x5-E3930 versus 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3755U — a 5.7% clock advantage for the Atom x5-E3930 (base: 1.3 GHz vs 1.7 GHz). The Atom x5-E3930 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron 3755U uses Broadwell-U (2015) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Atom x5-E3930 scores 1,185 against the Celeron 3755U's 1,182 — a 0.3% lead for the Atom x5-E3930. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom x5-E3930 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 3755U.

Feature	Atom x5-E3930	Celeron 3755U
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz+6%	1.7 GHz
Base Clock	1.3 GHz	1.7 GHz+31%
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB (total)	256K (per core)+12700%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Broadwell-U (2015)
PassMark	1,185	1,182
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	625

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom x5-E3930 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron 3755U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1866 on the Atom x5-E3930 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3755U — the Atom x5-E3930 supports 16.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3755U supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom x5-E3930) vs 12 (Celeron 3755U) — the Celeron 3755U offers 8 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1296 (Atom x5-E3930) and Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3755U).

Feature	Atom x5-E3930	Celeron 3755U
Socket	FCBGA1296	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1866+17%	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	16 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	4	12+200%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom x5-E3930) / VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3755U). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics 500 (Atom x5-E3930) and HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3755U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3755U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3755U rivals Pentium 3825U.