Atom Z3770 vs Celeron N3160

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 N3160 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 N3160: 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 1,195).
❌100% higher power demand at 8W vs 4W.

Celeron N3160

2016

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 4W instead of 8W, a 4W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (4 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 N3160 better than Atom Z3770?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Atom Z3770 is ahead with 6.7% higher max boost clock. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N3160 pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Celeron N3160 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Celeron N3160 still makes the most sense overall. Celeron N3160 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.5% better PassMark.

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

Celeron N3160 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2013) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 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 N3160 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 N3160

The Celeron N3160 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 January 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Braswell (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2.24 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 6 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,195 points. Launch price was $107.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Atom Z3770 and Celeron N3160 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.39 GHz on the Atom Z3770 versus 2.24 GHz on the Celeron N3160 — a 6.5% clock advantage for the Atom Z3770 (base: 1.46 GHz vs 1.6 GHz). The Atom Z3770 uses the Bay Trail-T (2013−2014) architecture (22 nm), while the Celeron N3160 uses Braswell (2015−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Atom Z3770 scores 1,189 against the Celeron N3160's 1,195 — a 0.5% lead for the Celeron N3160. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	Atom Z3770	Celeron N3160
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	2.39 GHz+7%	2.24 GHz
Base Clock	1.46 GHz	1.6 GHz+10%
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+25500%	2 MB
Process	22 nm	14 nm-36%
Architecture	Bay Trail-T (2013−2014)	Braswell (2015−2016)
PassMark	1,189	1,195

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom Z3770 uses the UTFCBGA1380 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Celeron N3160 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches LPDDR3-1066 on the Atom Z3770 versus 1600 on the Celeron N3160 — the Celeron N3160 supports 50.1% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Celeron N3160 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 N3160) — the Celeron N3160 offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FC-UTBGA592 (Atom Z3770) and FCBGA1170 (Celeron N3160).

Feature	Atom Z3770	Celeron N3160
Socket	UTFCBGA1380	FCBGA1170
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 3.0+50%
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR3-1066	1600+50%
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 N3160). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom Z3770) and Intel HD Graphics 400 (Celeron N3160) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Celeron N3160 rivals AMD E2-9010.