Processor 300 vs Atom E3826
Aggregate performance score
Processor 300 outperforms Atom E3826 by a whopping 2274% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Atom E3826 and Processor 300 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 3233 | 1309 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Atom | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.57 | 9.28 |
| Architecture codename | Bay Trail-I (2013) | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $82 |
Detailed specifications
Atom E3826 and Processor 300 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.9 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.47 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | no data | 163 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Atom E3826 and Processor 300 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | Intel BGA1170 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 46 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom E3826 and Processor 300. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Atom E3826 and Processor 300 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom E3826 and Processor 300 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom E3826 and Processor 300. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 76.8 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 710 |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.45 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 16 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Atom E3826 and Processor 300 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Atom E3826 and Processor 300 integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2160 @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 5120 x 3200 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Atom E3826 and Processor 300 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom E3826 and Processor 300.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.19 | 4.51 |
| Integrated graphics card | 0.77 | 2.85 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 8 January 2024 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 46 Watt |
Atom E3826 has 557.1% lower power consumption.
Processor 300, on the other hand, has a 2273.7% higher aggregate performance score, 270.1% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 10 years, and 100% more threads.
The Processor 300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom E3826 in performance tests.
Be aware that Atom E3826 is a notebook processor while Processor 300 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom E3826 and Processor 300, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
