Atom Z3770 vs Celeron 3965Y

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 3965Y 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 3965Y: 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

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,189 vs 1,201).
❌33.3% higher power demand at 8W vs 6W.

Celeron 3965Y

2017

Why buy it

✅+1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 6W instead of 8W, a 2W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (10 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

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

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron 3965Y better than Atom Z3770?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Atom Z3770 is ahead with a 1.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3965Y pulls ahead with 1% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron 3965Y is the stronger fit. You are getting 1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

Celeron 3965Y still makes the most sense overall. Celeron 3965Y comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1% better PassMark.

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

Celeron 3965Y makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2013) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom Z3770 vs Celeron 3965Y 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 3965Y

The Celeron 3965Y is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2007-01-01. It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.5 GHz, with boost up to 1.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1515. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,201 points. Launch price was $69.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom Z3770 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron 3965Y offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom Z3770 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.39 GHz on the Atom Z3770 versus 1.3 GHz on the Celeron 3965Y — a 59.1% clock advantage for the Atom Z3770 (base: 1.46 GHz vs 1.5 GHz). The Atom Z3770 uses the Bay Trail-T (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron 3965Y uses Kaby Lake (2016−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Atom Z3770 scores 1,189 against the Celeron 3965Y's 1,201 — a 1% lead for the Celeron 3965Y. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom Z3770 vs 2 MB on the Celeron 3965Y.

Feature	Atom Z3770	Celeron 3965Y
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.39 GHz+84%	1.3 GHz
Base Clock	1.46 GHz	1.5 GHz+3%
L3 Cache	0 kB	2 MB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512 kB
Process	22 nm	14 nm-36%
Architecture	Bay Trail-T (2013−2014)	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)
PassMark	1,189	1,201+1%
Geekbench 6 Single	—	372
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	708

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom Z3770 uses the UTFCBGA1380 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron 3965Y uses FCBGA1515 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches LPDDR3-1066 on the Atom Z3770 versus LPDDR3-1866 on the Celeron 3965Y — the Celeron 3965Y supports 75% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron 3965Y 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 10 (Celeron 3965Y) — the Celeron 3965Y offers 10 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FC-UTBGA592 (Atom Z3770) and SoC (Celeron 3965Y).

Feature	Atom Z3770	Celeron 3965Y
Socket	UTFCBGA1380	FCBGA1515
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR3-1066	LPDDR3-1866+75%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	16 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	10

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom Z3770) / VT-x, VT-d (Celeron 3965Y). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom Z3770) and Intel HD Graphics 615 (Celeron 3965Y) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 3965Y targets Low Power. Direct competitor: Celeron 3965Y rivals Pentium Gold 4415Y.

Feature	Atom Z3770	Celeron 3965Y
Integrated GPU	Yes	Yes
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail)	Intel HD Graphics 615
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	VT-x, VT-d
Target Use	—	Low Power