Celeron G3900TE vs Atom x7-E3950
Celeron G3900TE
Atom x7-E3950
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 G3900TE is positioned at rank 467 and the Atom x7-E3950 is on rank 480, so the Celeron G3900TE offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Celeron G3900TE
Performance Per Dollar Atom x7-E3950
Performance Comparison
About PassMark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
| Insight | Celeron G3900TE | Atom x7-E3950 |
|---|---|---|
| Gaming | ✅ Superior gaming performance | ❌ Lower gaming performance |
| Workstation | ❌ Weaker in multi-core tasks | ✅ Better multi-core power |
| Price | ⚠️ Higher cost ($45) | ✅ More affordable ($0) |
| Longevity | 🛑 Legacy (Skylake (2015−2016) / 14 nm) | 🛑 Legacy (Apollo Lake (2014−2016) / 14 nm) |
💎 Value Proposition
| Insight | Celeron G3900TE | Atom x7-E3950 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency | ❌ Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️ Higher cost ($45) | ✅ 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 G3900TE and Atom x7-E3950
Celeron G3900TE
The Celeron G3900TE is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 19 October 2015 (10 years ago). It is based on the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 2 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 1,850 points. Launch price was $42.
Atom x7-E3950
The Atom x7-E3950 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 August 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Apollo Lake (2014−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.6 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB (total). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1296. Thermal design power (TDP): 12 Watt. Memory support: DDR3, DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 1,864 points. Launch price was $57.
Processing Power
The Celeron G3900TE packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Atom x7-E3950 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Atom x7-E3950 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the Celeron G3900TE versus 2 GHz on the Atom x7-E3950 — a 14% clock advantage for the Celeron G3900TE. The Celeron G3900TE uses the Skylake (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Atom x7-E3950 uses Apollo Lake (2014−2016) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Celeron G3900TE scores 1,850 against the Atom x7-E3950's 1,864 — a 0.8% lead for the Atom x7-E3950. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 514 vs 245, a 70.9% lead for the Celeron G3900TE that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 2 MB on the Celeron G3900TE vs 0 kB on the Atom x7-E3950.
| Feature | Celeron G3900TE | Atom x7-E3950 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 2 | 4 / 4+100% |
| Boost Clock | 2.3 GHz+15% | 2 GHz |
| Base Clock | — | 1.6 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB | 0 kB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB | 2 MB (total)+300% |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Skylake (2015−2016) | Apollo Lake (2014−2016) |
| PassMark | 1,850 | 1,864 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | 514+110% | 245 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | 903 | — |
Memory & Platform
The Celeron G3900TE uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Atom x7-E3950 uses FCBGA1296 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR4-2133 memory speed. The Celeron G3900TE supports up to 64 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 155.6% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Celeron G3900TE) vs 4 (Atom x7-E3950). PCIe lanes: 16 (Celeron G3900TE) vs 6 (Atom x7-E3950) — the Celeron G3900TE offers 10 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: H110,Q170 (Celeron G3900TE) and Apollo Lake (Atom x7-E3950).
| Feature | Celeron G3900TE | Atom x7-E3950 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | LGA1151 | FCBGA1296 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | DDR4-2133 | LPDDR4-2400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 64 GB+700% | 8 GB |
| RAM Channels | 2 | 4+100% |
| ECC Support | ✅ | ✅ |
| PCIe Lanes | 16+167% | 6 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics 510 (Celeron G3900TE) and HD Graphics 505 (Atom x7-E3950) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Celeron G3900TE targets Embedded. Direct competitor: Celeron G3900TE rivals Pentium G4400T.
| Feature | Celeron G3900TE | Atom x7-E3950 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | Yes | Yes |
| IGPU Model | Intel HD Graphics 510 | HD Graphics 505 |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
| Target Use | Embedded | — |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Celeron G3900TE and Atom x7-E3950
