Atom x5-Z8330 vs Celeron J3060

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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Atom x5-Z8330

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.0% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron J3060

2016

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom x5-Z8330 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,015 vs 1,025).

Atom x5-Z8330

2016

Celeron J3060

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.0% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.

Why buy it

Trade-offs

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

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom x5-Z8330 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (1,015 vs 1,025).

Quick Answers

So, is Atom x5-Z8330 better than Celeron J3060?

Yes. Atom x5-Z8330 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 4.0% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data, 1% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Atom x5-Z8330 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 4.0% more average FPS across 2 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom x5-Z8330 is the better fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom x5-Z8330 still looks like the safer overall buy. Atom x5-Z8330 is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 4.0% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Atom x5-Z8330 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom should age better as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Atom x5-Z8330 Benchmark Check

Celeron J3060 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Atom x5-Z8330	Celeron J3060
1080p
low	26 FPS	25 FPS
medium	26 FPS	25 FPS
high	26 FPS	25 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	25 FPS
1440p
low	26 FPS	25 FPS
medium	26 FPS	25 FPS
high	26 FPS	25 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	25 FPS
4K
low	26 FPS	25 FPS
medium	26 FPS	25 FPS
high	26 FPS	25 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	25 FPS

Open Atom x5-Z8330 Open Celeron J3060

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Atom x5-Z8330	Celeron J3060
1080p
low	26 FPS	25 FPS
medium	26 FPS	25 FPS
high	26 FPS	25 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	25 FPS
1440p
low	26 FPS	25 FPS
medium	26 FPS	25 FPS
high	26 FPS	25 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	25 FPS
4K
low	26 FPS	25 FPS
medium	26 FPS	25 FPS
high	26 FPS	25 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	20 FPS

Open Atom x5-Z8330 Open Celeron J3060

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Atom x5-Z8330	Celeron J3060
1080p
low	26 FPS	25 FPS
medium	26 FPS	25 FPS
high	26 FPS	25 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	25 FPS
1440p
low	26 FPS	25 FPS
medium	26 FPS	25 FPS
high	26 FPS	25 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	25 FPS
4K
low	26 FPS	25 FPS
medium	26 FPS	25 FPS
high	26 FPS	25 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	25 FPS

Open Atom x5-Z8330 Open Celeron J3060

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Atom x5-Z8330	Celeron J3060
1080p
low	26 FPS	25 FPS
medium	26 FPS	25 FPS
high	26 FPS	25 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	25 FPS
1440p
low	26 FPS	25 FPS
medium	26 FPS	25 FPS
high	26 FPS	25 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	25 FPS
4K
low	26 FPS	25 FPS
medium	26 FPS	25 FPS
high	26 FPS	25 FPS
ultra	26 FPS	25 FPS

Open Atom x5-Z8330 Open Celeron J3060

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Atom x5-Z8330 and Celeron J3060

Atom x5-Z8330

The Atom x5-Z8330 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 February 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Airmont (2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.44 GHz, with boost up to 1.92 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Memory support: DDR3L-RS 1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,025 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron J3060

The Celeron J3060 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Airmont (2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.48 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,015 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom x5-Z8330 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron J3060 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom x5-Z8330 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.92 GHz on the Atom x5-Z8330 versus 2.48 GHz on the Celeron J3060 — a 25.5% clock advantage for the Celeron J3060 (base: 1.44 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). Both are built on the Airmont (2016) architecture using a 14 nm process. In PassMark, the Atom x5-Z8330 scores 1,025 against the Celeron J3060's 1,015 — a 1% lead for the Atom x5-Z8330. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom x5-Z8330	Celeron J3060
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.92 GHz	2.48 GHz+29%
Base Clock	1.44 GHz	1.6 GHz+11%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB+100%	1 MB
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Airmont (2016)	Airmont (2016)
PassMark	1,025	1,015
Geekbench 6 Single	—	200
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	370

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both support up to DDR3L-RS 1600 memory speed. The Celeron J3060 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 120% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 1 (Atom x5-Z8330) vs 2 (Celeron J3060). PCIe lanes: 1 (Atom x5-Z8330) vs 4 (Celeron J3060) — the Celeron J3060 offers 3 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FC-UTBGA592 (Atom x5-Z8330) and SoC (Celeron J3060).

Feature	Atom x5-Z8330	Celeron J3060
Socket	—	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-RS 1600	DDR3L-1600
Max RAM Capacity	2 GB	8 GB+300%
RAM Channels	1	2+100%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	1	4+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom x5-Z8330) / VT-x, EPT (Celeron J3060). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail) (Atom x5-Z8330) and Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron J3060) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron J3060 targets Low Power Desktop/NAS. Direct competitor: Celeron J3060 rivals Pentium J3710.

Feature	Atom x5-Z8330	Celeron J3060
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail)	Intel HD Graphics 400
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x, EPT
Target Use	—	Low Power Desktop/NAS