Atom Z3770 vs Celeron N2830

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 N2830 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 N2830: 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

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.

Trade-offs

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

Celeron N2830

2014

Why buy it

✅Draws 7W instead of 8W, a 1W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,185 vs 1,189).

Quick Answers

So, is Celeron N2830 better than Atom Z3770?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Celeron N2830 is ahead with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom Z3770 pulls ahead with 0.3% better PassMark.

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 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N2830 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N2830 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

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

Celeron N2830 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2013). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom Z3770 vs Celeron N2830 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 N2830

The Celeron N2830 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 23 February 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2.16 GHz, with boost up to 2.41 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 7.5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,185 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom Z3770 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Celeron N2830 offers 2 cores / 2 threads — the Atom Z3770 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.39 GHz on the Atom Z3770 versus 2.41 GHz on the Celeron N2830 — a 0.8% clock advantage for the Celeron N2830 (base: 1.46 GHz vs 2.16 GHz). The Atom Z3770 uses the Bay Trail-T (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron N2830 uses Bay Trail-M (2013−2014) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom Z3770 scores 1,189 against the Celeron N2830's 1,185 — a 0.3% lead for the Atom Z3770. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom Z3770	Celeron N2830
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 2
Boost Clock	2.39 GHz	2.41 GHz
Base Clock	1.46 GHz	2.16 GHz+48%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)	512K (per core)
Process	22 nm	22 nm
Architecture	Bay Trail-T (2013−2014)	Bay Trail-M (2013−2014)
PassMark	1,189	1,185

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom Z3770 uses the UTFCBGA1380 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N2830 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches LPDDR3-1066 on the Atom Z3770 versus 1333 on the Celeron N2830 — the Celeron N2830 supports 25% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron N2830 supports up to 8 GB of RAM compared to 4 GB — 100% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 0 (Atom Z3770) vs 4 (Celeron N2830) — the Celeron N2830 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FC-UTBGA592 (Atom Z3770) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N2830).

Feature	Atom Z3770	Celeron N2830
Socket	UTFCBGA1380	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR3-1066	1333+25%
Max RAM Capacity	4 GB	8 GB+100%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	0	4

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom Z3770) / true (Celeron N2830). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom Z3770) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Celeron N2830) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N2830 rivals AMD A6-6310.