Atom x7-Z8700 vs Celeron N2840

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 x7-Z8700 vs Celeron N2840 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 x7-Z8700 vs Celeron N2840: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom x7-Z8700

2015

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,325 vs 1,331).

Celeron N2840

2014

Why buy it

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2840 better than Atom x7-Z8700?

Yes. Celeron N2840 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.5% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron N2840 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.3% 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, Celeron N2840 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron N2840 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2840 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Atom x7-Z8700 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2014). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom x7-Z8700 vs Celeron N2840 Technical Specifications

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

Atom x7-Z8700

The Atom x7-Z8700 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 March 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Cherry Trail (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.4 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: UTFCBGA1380. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,325 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron N2840

The Celeron N2840 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.16 GHz, with boost up to 2.58 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,331 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom x7-Z8700 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron N2840 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom x7-Z8700 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.4 GHz on the Atom x7-Z8700 versus 2.58 GHz on the Celeron N2840 — a 7.2% clock advantage for the Celeron N2840 (base: 1.6 GHz vs 2.16 GHz). The Atom x7-Z8700 uses the Cherry Trail (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Celeron N2840 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom x7-Z8700 scores 1,325 against the Celeron N2840's 1,331 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron N2840. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom x7-Z8700	Celeron N2840
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.4 GHz	2.58 GHz+8%
Base Clock	1.6 GHz	2.16 GHz+35%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	2 MB	512K (per core)+25500%
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Cherry Trail (2015−2016)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,325	1,331
Geekbench 6 Single	—	230
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	430

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom x7-Z8700 uses the UTFCBGA1380 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron N2840 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches LPDDR3-1600 on the Atom x7-Z8700 versus DDR3L-1333 on the Celeron N2840 — the Atom x7-Z8700 supports 20% 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. PCIe lanes: 2 (Atom x7-Z8700) vs 4 (Celeron N2840) — the Celeron N2840 offers 2 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FC-UTBGA592 (Atom x7-Z8700) and SoC (Celeron N2840).

Feature	Atom x7-Z8700	Celeron N2840
Socket	UTFCBGA1380	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR3-1600+20%	DDR3L-1333
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	2	4+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom x7-Z8700) / VT-x (Celeron N2840). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail) (Atom x7-Z8700) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2840) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron N2840 targets Netbook. Direct competitor: Celeron N2840 rivals AMD A6-6310.

Feature	Atom x7-Z8700	Celeron N2840
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail)	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x
Target Use	—	Netbook