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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Per Dollar Celeron N2840

#42

Ryzen 9 9955HX3D

MSRP: $749|Avg: N/A

99%

#145

Atom x5-Z8300

MSRP: $20|Avg: N/A

331%

#146

Atom Z3735G

MSRP: $17|Avg: N/A

326%

#147

Core i5-480M

MSRP: $81|Avg: $77

299%

#148

Core i5-460M

MSRP: $80|Avg: $129

298%

#149

Core i5-2540M

MSRP: $266|Avg: $10

295%

#151

Core i5-450M

MSRP: $32|Avg: $31

285%

#152

Core i3-380M

MSRP: $49|Avg: $25

273%

#153

Core i5-430M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $33

273%

#154

Core 2 Duo T6600

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $4

265%

#157

Celeron N2840

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#158

Core i5-3210M

MSRP: $225|Avg: $30

99%

Based on actual market prices and performance synthetic scores.

Performance Comparison

About PassMark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

Performance Leadership: The Celeron N2840 delivers superior performance across the board. It outperforms the Atom x7-Z8700 in both compute-intensive tasks (0.5% faster) and gaming workloads.

Insight	Atom x7-Z8700	Celeron N2840
Gaming	❌ Lower gaming performance	✅ Superior gaming performance
Workstation	❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks	✅ Better multi-core power
Price	Equivalent pricing	Equivalent pricing
Longevity	🛑 Legacy (Cherry Trail (2015−2016) / 14 nm)	🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) / 22 nm)

💎 Value Proposition

Insight	Atom x7-Z8700	Celeron N2840
Cost Efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency	❌ Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	Equivalent pricing	Equivalent pricing

Performance Check

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 x7-Z8700 Benchmark Check

Celeron N2840 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Atom x7-Z8700 and Celeron N2840

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+300%	512K (per core)
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. Both support up to LPDDR3-1600 memory speed. 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	DDR3L-1333
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	8 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	❌	❌
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