Atom Z3770 vs Celeron 3755U

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 Z3770 vs Celeron 3755U 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 Z3770 vs Celeron 3755U: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom Z3770

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 8W instead of 15W, a 7W reduction.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron 3755U

2015

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (12 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,182 vs 1,189).
❌87.5% higher power demand at 15W vs 8W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom Z3770 better than Celeron 3755U?

Yes. Atom Z3770 is the better all-around CPU here. It gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data and 0.6% better PassMark, which is enough to make it the stronger overall pick.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Atom Z3770 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.5% 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, Atom Z3770 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.6% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom Z3770 still makes the most sense overall. Atom Z3770 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron 3755U makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2015 vs 2013). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom Z3770 vs Celeron 3755U Technical Specifications

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

Atom Z3770

The Atom Z3770 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-T (2013−2014) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.46 GHz, with boost up to 2.39 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: UTFCBGA1380. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,189 points. Launch price was $37.

Celeron 3755U

The Celeron 3755U is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 March 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell-U (2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1168. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,182 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom Z3770 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 3755U offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom Z3770 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.39 GHz on the Atom Z3770 versus 1.7 GHz on the Celeron 3755U — a 33.7% clock advantage for the Atom Z3770 (base: 1.46 GHz vs 1.7 GHz). The Atom Z3770 uses the Bay Trail-T (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron 3755U uses Broadwell-U (2015) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Atom Z3770 scores 1,189 against the Celeron 3755U's 1,182 — a 0.6% lead for the Atom Z3770. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom Z3770 vs 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 3755U.

Feature	Atom Z3770	Celeron 3755U
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.39 GHz+41%	1.7 GHz
Base Clock	1.46 GHz	1.7 GHz+16%
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	22 nm	14 nm-36%
Architecture	Bay Trail-T (2013−2014)	Broadwell-U (2015)
PassMark	1,189	1,182
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	625

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom Z3770 uses the UTFCBGA1380 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 3755U uses FCBGA1168 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches LPDDR3-1066 on the Atom Z3770 versus DDR3L-1600 on the Celeron 3755U — the Celeron 3755U supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3755U supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Atom Z3770) vs 12 (Celeron 3755U) — the Celeron 3755U offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FC-UTBGA592 (Atom Z3770) and Wildcat Point-LP (Celeron 3755U).

Feature	Atom Z3770	Celeron 3755U
Socket	UTFCBGA1380	FCBGA1168
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR3-1066	DDR3L-1600+50%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	16 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	12

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom Z3770) / VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3755U). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom Z3770) and HD Graphics (Broadwell) (Celeron 3755U) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3755U targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 3755U rivals Pentium 3825U.

Feature	Atom Z3770	Celeron 3755U
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)	HD Graphics (Broadwell)
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	Budget