Atom Z2560 vs Celeron T1700

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 Z2560 vs Celeron T1700 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 Z2560 vs Celeron T1700: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom Z2560

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 3W instead of 35W, a 32W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with PowerVR SGX544MP2, while Celeron T1700 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,056 vs 1,058).

Celeron T1700

2008

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $80 MSRP, while Atom Z2560 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1066.7% higher power demand at 35W vs 3W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom Z2560 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron T1700 better than Atom Z2560?

Yes. Celeron T1700 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.2% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron T1700 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.1% 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 T1700 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark.

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

Celeron T1700 is the better buy right now. Celeron T1700 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $80 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (13.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Atom Z2560 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2008). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom Z2560 vs Celeron T1700 Technical Specifications

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

Atom Z2560

The Atom Z2560 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 February 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Clovertrail (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FC-MB4760. Thermal design power (TDP): 3 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,056 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron T1700

The Celeron T1700 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. Base frequency: 1.83 GHz. L3 cache: 1 MB L2 Cache. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: PGA478. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 1,058 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom Z2560 is built on the Clovertrail (2013) architecture. In PassMark, the Atom Z2560 scores 1,056 against the Celeron T1700's 1,058 — a 0.2% lead for the Celeron T1700. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom Z2560 vs 1 MB L2 Cache on the Celeron T1700.

Feature	Atom Z2560	Celeron T1700
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	—
Boost Clock	1.6 GHz	—
Base Clock	—	1.83 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	1 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	—
Process	32 nm-51%	65 nm
Architecture	Clovertrail (2013)	—
PassMark	1,056	1,058

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom Z2560 uses the FC-MB4760 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron T1700 uses PGA478 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Atom Z2560	Celeron T1700
Socket	FC-MB4760	PGA478
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR2-1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	2 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—