CPU Comparison

The AMD Athlon PRO 3045B and Intel Atom C5315 are two low-power processors that land within 0.1% of each other in average benchmark score, with the AMD part posting 872 and the Intel part 871. This places both chips at the 23rd percentile among all CPUs tracked, indicating they are entry-level performers. Despite the near-identical aggregate scores, the benchmark distribution is entirely one-sided: the Intel Atom C5315 wins all five head-to-head tests, yet the margin is consistently narrow, ranging from 6.7% to 7.1%. The data suggests a matchup where architectural trade-offs produce a statistically significant but practically modest performance gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Atom C5315 wins every single benchmark in the comparison set, but the victories are uniform in magnitude rather than lopsided. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Atom scores 255 against the Athlon’s 237, a delta of -7.1% from the AMD perspective. The same 7.1% deficit appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Atom posts 1063 versus 988, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Atom’s 2533 beats the Athlon’s 2354. This consistency across three generations of Cinebench suggests the multi-core advantage is structural, not workload-specific.

Single-core results tell a similar story with slightly smaller margins. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Atom leads 149 to 139, a 6.7% gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Atom’s 357 surpasses the Athlon’s 332 by 7.0%. The Intel part’s single-core edge is nearly as large as its multi-core edge, which is notable given that the Athlon has simultaneous multithreading (4 threads on 2 cores) while the Atom runs 4 threads on 4 physical cores. The Atom’s higher base clock of 2.40 GHz versus 2.30 GHz on the Athlon, combined with its Tremont architecture’s efficiency, appears to drive these consistent wins.

The practical impact of these deltas is modest. A 7.1% difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core translates to roughly 179 points, which in real-world rendering tasks would be imperceptible for most users. However, the data does not show a single test where the AMD part pulls ahead. The Athlon PRO 3045B’s Geekbench results, which are not part of the head-to-head set, show 1287 multi-core and 766 single-core, but these scores only appear in the AMD’s own benchmark list and cannot be directly compared to the Atom, which lacks Geekbench entries in the fact pack.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their design philosophies. The AMD Athlon PRO 3045B is built on the Zen architecture (codename Dali) using a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, packing 3,500 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. It features 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The Intel Atom C5315, by contrast, uses the Tremont architecture (codename Parker Ridge) on Intel’s 10 nm process, with 4 cores and 4 threads, a base clock of 2.40 GHz, and no boost clock listed.

Cache configurations highlight a major strategic difference. The Athlon allocates 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The Atom provides 64 KB of L1 per core and a much larger 4.5 MB L2 per module, but no L3 cache at all. This means the Atom relies on its expansive L2 to compensate for the absence of a third-level cache, while the Athlon benefits from a traditional three-tier hierarchy. The Atom’s per-module L2 design is likely what allows it to achieve competitive scores despite the lack of L3.

Thermal and power envelopes differ substantially. The Athlon has a 15 W TDP, while the Atom draws 38 W, more than double. This is counterintuitive for a chip named “Atom,” but the C5315 is positioned for server/workstation use, whereas the Athlon targets mobile. The Atom’s higher power budget likely enables its higher base clock and sustained multi-core performance. Both processors support DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. The Athlon includes integrated Radeon Vega graphics with 2 compute units, while the Atom has no integrated graphics.

PCIe connectivity also differs: the Athlon provides 12 Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the Atom provides 8 Gen 3 lanes. The Atom uses a BGA 2106 socket, the Athlon an FP5 socket. The Atom was released on June 5, 2022, with a launch MSRP of $213, while the Athlon’s release date and MSRP are not listed. The Atom’s process node (10 nm) is denser than the Athlon’s (14 nm), yet the Athlon’s transistor count (3,500 million) and die size (148 mm²) are explicitly documented, whereas the Atom’s are not provided.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the Intel Atom C5315 is the faster processor in every measured test. It wins all five head-to-head comparisons with margins between 6.7% and 7.1%, covering both multi-core and single-core workloads in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The Atom’s 4 physical cores give it a structural advantage in multi-threaded tasks, while its higher base clock and Tremont architecture deliver superior single-thread performance. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical (872 vs 871), but the distribution of wins is unambiguous.

However, the Athlon PRO 3045B is not without merit. Its 15 W TDP is less than half the Atom’s 38 W, making it a far more power-efficient option for mobile or compact systems. The Athlon includes integrated graphics, which the Atom lacks entirely, so systems built around the Athlon can operate without a discrete GPU. The Athlon’s boost clock of 3.20 GHz is also higher than the Atom’s fixed 2.40 GHz, suggesting that in short, bursty single-thread workloads, the AMD part might close the gap, though the Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core tests do not reflect this.

For users prioritizing raw compute in a server or workstation context, the Atom C5315 is the clear choice based on its benchmark wins. For users prioritizing power efficiency, integrated graphics, or a lower thermal footprint, the Athlon PRO 3045B is the better fit, despite losing every direct comparison. The data does not support a scenario where the AMD part wins on performance, only on secondary attributes like power and graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Athlon PRO 3045B has an average benchmark score of 872, while the Intel Atom C5315 scores 871, a difference of just 0.1% in favor of the AMD part.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD Athlon PRO 3045B has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Atom C5315 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any benchmark?

A: The largest gaps are 7.1% in favor of the Intel Atom C5315, appearing in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, and R23 multi-core.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B and the Intel Atom C5315 support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Athlon PRO 3045B includes Radeon Vega graphics with 2 compute units. The Intel Atom C5315 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Athlon PRO 3045B has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel Atom C5315 has a TDP of 38 W.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Atom C5315 wins in all measured performance categories. It takes multi-core victories in Cinebench R15 (255 vs 237), R20 (1063 vs 988), and R23 (2533 vs 2354), each by a 7.1% margin. It also wins single-core tests in R20 (149 vs 139) and R23 (357 vs 332), with margins of 6.7% and 7.0% respectively. This makes the Atom the superior choice for CPU-bound workloads such as rendering, compilation, or server-side processing where sustained multi-threaded performance is critical. Its 4 physical cores provide a direct advantage in parallel tasks, and its higher base clock (2.40 GHz vs 2.30 GHz) supports better single-thread execution.

The AMD Athlon PRO 3045B wins in non-benchmark categories that are nonetheless important for certain deployments. Its 15 W TDP is 60% lower than the Atom’s 38 W, making it the clear choice for power-constrained environments like thin-and-light laptops or fanless industrial systems. The Athlon’s integrated Radeon Vega graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU, which is a decisive advantage for compact builds or embedded applications where a discrete card is impractical. The Athlon also offers more PCIe lanes (12 vs 8), which can benefit systems requiring additional expansion devices.

In terms of memory and cache, the two are evenly matched on bandwidth (both 38.4 GB/s dual-channel DDR4) and ECC support, but the Athlon’s 4 MB L3 cache and per-core L1/L2 design may provide better latency characteristics for certain access patterns, while the Atom’s 4.5 MB L2 per module offers a different trade-off. The Athlon’s boost clock of 3.20 GHz is higher than the Atom’s fixed 2.40 GHz, which could give the AMD part an edge in short, bursty workloads that do not appear in the Cinebench results. Ultimately, the Atom wins on measured performance, while the Athlon wins on power efficiency, integrated graphics, and PCIe flexibility.