Atom Z2760 vs Celeron G1630

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 Z2760 vs Celeron G1630 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 Z2760 vs Celeron G1630: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom Z2760

2012

Why buy it

✅Draws 3W instead of 55W, a 52W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,697 vs 1,707).

Celeron G1630

2013

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $42 MSRP, while Atom Z2760 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌1733.3% higher power demand at 55W vs 3W.

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron G1630 better than Atom Z2760?

Yes. Celeron G1630 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data, 0.6% better PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Celeron G1630 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.2% 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 G1630 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron G1630 is the better buy right now. Celeron G1630 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $42 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (40.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Celeron G1630 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom Z2760 vs Celeron G1630 Technical Specifications

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

Atom Z2760

The Atom Z2760 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 September 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Cloverview (2012) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.8 GHz, with boost up to 1.8 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: 1,697 points. Launch price was $69.

Celeron G1630

The Celeron G1630 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 2.8 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1155. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,707 points. Launch price was $80.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom Z2760 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, matching the Celeron G1630's 2 cores. Boost clocks reach 1.8 GHz on the Atom Z2760 versus 2.8 GHz on the Celeron G1630 — a 43.5% clock advantage for the Celeron G1630 (base: 1.8 GHz vs 2.8 GHz). The Atom Z2760 uses the Cloverview (2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Celeron G1630 uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom Z2760 scores 1,697 against the Celeron G1630's 1,707 — a 0.6% lead for the Celeron G1630. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom Z2760 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron G1630.

Feature	Atom Z2760	Celeron G1630
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.8 GHz	2.8 GHz+56%
Base Clock	1.8 GHz	2.8 GHz+56%
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	32 nm	22 nm-31%
Architecture	Cloverview (2012)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	1,697	1,707
Geekbench 6 Single	—	386
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	635

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom Z2760 uses the FC-MB4760 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron G1630 uses LGA1155 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches LPDDR2-800 on the Atom Z2760 versus DDR3-1333 on the Celeron G1630 — the Celeron G1630 supports 66.6% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron G1630 supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 2 GB — 1500% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Atom Z2760) vs 16 (Celeron G1630) — the Celeron G1630 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel BGA1264 (Atom Z2760) and H61,B75,H77,Z77 (Celeron G1630).

Feature	Atom Z2760	Celeron G1630
Socket	FC-MB4760	LGA1155
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR2-800	DDR3-1333+67%
Max RAM Capacity	2 GB	32 GB+1500%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	0	16

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom Z2760) / VT-x (Celeron G1630). Both include integrated graphics — Intel GMA 3650 (Atom Z2760) and HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) (Celeron G1630) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G1630 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron G1630 rivals Pentium G2030.