Atom x5-E3930 vs Celeron N3150

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 N3150 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 N3150: 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

✅Better for gaming: +3.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron N3150

2015

Why buy it

✅Draws 6W instead of 7W, a 1W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom x5-E3930 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,177 vs 1,185).

Quick Answers

So, is Atom x5-E3930 better than Celeron N3150?

Yes. Atom x5-E3930 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 3.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.7% 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 3.5% 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 0.7% 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 3.5% 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 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom x5-E3930 vs Celeron N3150 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 N3150

The Celeron N3150 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 April 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.08 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,177 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom x5-E3930 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Celeron N3150 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Celeron N3150 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Atom x5-E3930 versus 2.08 GHz on the Celeron N3150 — a 14.4% clock advantage for the Celeron N3150 (base: 1.3 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Atom x5-E3930 uses the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron N3150 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Atom x5-E3930 scores 1,185 against the Celeron N3150's 1,177 — a 0.7% lead for the Atom x5-E3930. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom x5-E3930	Celeron N3150
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	2.08 GHz+16%
Base Clock	1.3 GHz	1.6 GHz+23%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB (total)	2 MB
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Apollo Lake (2014−2016)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,185	1,177

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom x5-E3930 uses the FCBGA1296 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N3150 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3L-1866 on the Atom x5-E3930 versus 1600 on the Celeron N3150 — the Atom x5-E3930 supports 16.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 8 GB of RAM. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 4 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1296 (Atom x5-E3930) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3150).

Feature	Atom x5-E3930	Celeron N3150
Socket	FCBGA1296	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1866+17%	1600
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	4	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom x5-E3930) / true (Celeron N3150). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics 500 (Atom x5-E3930) and Intel HD Graphics (Braswell) (Celeron N3150) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N3150 rivals AMD E2-7110.