Atom Z2580 vs Celeron E3500

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 Z2580 vs Celeron E3500 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 Z2580 vs Celeron E3500: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom Z2580

2013

Why buy it

✅+1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 3W instead of 65W, a 62W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with PowerVR SGX544MP2, while Celeron E3500 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron E3500

2010

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,290 vs 1,303).
❌Launch MSRP is still $62 MSRP, while Atom Z2580 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌2066.7% higher power demand at 65W vs 3W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Atom Z2580 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom Z2580 better than Celeron E3500?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron E3500 is ahead with a 1.9% average FPS lead across 49 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom Z2580 pulls ahead with 1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom Z2580 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom Z2580 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Atom Z2580 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $62 MSRP, and it still gives you 1% better PassMark. Celeron E3500 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2010 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (20.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on LGA775.

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

Atom Z2580 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom Z2580 vs Celeron E3500 Technical Specifications

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

Atom Z2580

The Atom Z2580 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: 2 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: 1,303 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron E3500

The Celeron E3500 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 August 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Wolfdale (2008−2010) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.7 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA775. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR1, DDR2, DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,290 points. Launch price was $62.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom Z2580 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the Celeron E3500's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Atom Z2580 versus 2.7 GHz on the Celeron E3500 — a 29.8% clock advantage for the Celeron E3500. The Atom Z2580 uses the Clovertrail (2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron E3500 uses Wolfdale (2008−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Atom Z2580 scores 1,303 against the Celeron E3500's 1,290 — a 1% lead for the Atom Z2580. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom Z2580	Celeron E3500
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2 GHz	2.7 GHz+35%
Base Clock	—	2.7 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+51100%	1 MB (total)
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Clovertrail (2013)	Wolfdale (2008−2010)
PassMark	1,303+1%	1,290
Geekbench 6 Single	—	347
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	624

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom Z2580 uses the FC-MB4760 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Celeron E3500 uses LGA775 (PCIe 1.1) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to LPDDR2-1066 memory speed. The Celeron E3500 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 0 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: Intel BGA1264 (Atom Z2580) and G31,G41,P45 (Celeron E3500).

Feature	Atom Z2580	Celeron E3500
Socket	FC-MB4760	LGA775
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+173%	PCIe 1.1
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR2-1066	DDR3-1066
Max RAM Capacity	2 GB	8 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	0

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom Z2580) / VT-x (Celeron E3500). The Atom Z2580 includes integrated graphics (PowerVR SGX544MP2), while the Celeron E3500 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron E3500 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron E3500 rivals Pentium E5200.