Celeron 857 vs Atom E3827
Celeron 857
Atom E3827
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (PassMark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Celeron 857 is positioned at rank 1201 and the Atom E3827 is on rank 953, so the Atom E3827 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron 857
Performance Per Dollar Atom E3827
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron 857 | Atom E3827 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ❌ Lower gaming performance | ✅ Superior gaming performance |
| Workstation | ✅ Better multi-core power | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) / 32 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Bay Trail-I (2013) / 22 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron 857 | Atom E3827 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($10) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
Performance Check
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Celeron 857 and Atom E3827
Celeron 857
The Celeron 857 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 July 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 1.2 GHz, with boost up to 1.2 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1023. Thermal design power (TDP): 17 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 705 points. Launch price was $134.
Atom E3827
The Atom E3827 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 October 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Bay Trail-I (2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.75 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1170. Thermal design power (TDP): 8 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 665 points. Launch price was $69.
Processing Power
Both the Celeron 857 and Atom E3827 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.2 GHz on the Celeron 857 versus 1.75 GHz on the Atom E3827 — a 37.3% clock advantage for the Atom E3827. The Celeron 857 uses the Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) architecture (32 nm), while the Atom E3827 uses Bay Trail-I (2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron 857 scores 705 against the Atom E3827's 665 — a 5.8% lead for the Celeron 857. L3 cache: 2 MB (total) on the Celeron 857 vs 0 kB on the Atom E3827.
| Feature | Celeron 857 | Atom E3827 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 2 / 2 |
| Boost Clock | 1.2 GHz | 1.75 GHz+46% |
| Base Clock | 1.2 GHz | — |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB (total) | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 256K (per core) | 512 kB (per core)+100% |
| Process | 32 nm | 22 nm-31% |
| Architecture | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) | Bay Trail-I (2013) |
| PassMark | 705+6% | 665 |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron 857 uses the BGA1023 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Atom E3827 uses FCBGA1170 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3-1333 memory speed. The Celeron 857 supports up to 16 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron 857) vs 4 (Atom E3827) — the Celeron 857 offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM65,HM67 (Celeron 857) and Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom E3827).
| Feature | Celeron 857 | Atom E3827 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA1023 | FCBGA1170 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 2.0 | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR3-1333 | DDR3L-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 16 GB+100% | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 2 |
| ECC Support | ❌ | ✅ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16+300% | 4 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: VT-x (Celeron 857) / not specified (Atom E3827). Both include integrated graphics — HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) (Celeron 857) and Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) (Atom E3827) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron 857 targets Budget. Direct competitor: Celeron 857 rivals Pentium 967.
| Feature | Celeron 857 | Atom E3827 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) | Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) |
| Unlocked | No | — |
| AVX-512 | No | — |
| Virtualization | VT-x | — |
| Target Use | Budget | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron 857 and Atom E3827
