AMD Athlon X4 970 vs Intel Atom x7405C Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records 16 head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Atom x7405C and the AMD Athlon X4 970. The Intel part wins 14 of those, while the AMD chip takes only 2. The margin of victory, however, is not uniform, and the two AMD wins are substantial enough to define a clear split in workload types.

The Intel Atom x7405C’s most decisive victory comes in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 4004 against 1146, a delta of 249.4%. That is not a marginal advantage; it is a categorical one. The Intel chip also doubles the AMD part in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 22 versus 11, a 100% delta. In PassMark physics, the Atom leads 460 to 243, a 89.3% gap. Floating point math shows a 49.8% advantage for Intel (9063 vs 6049), and multi-core rendering workloads are consistently about 43.9% faster across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The single-core Cinebench R20 result shows a 44% lead, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 43.9%. Even PassMark random string sorting favors Intel by 32%, and extended instructions by 28.5%. The narrowest Intel win is in PassMark single-thread, where the Atom scores 1675 versus 1658, a 1% edge.

The AMD Athlon X4 970’s two wins are both in PassMark integer workloads. It beats the Atom in integer math by 23.5%, scoring 19174 versus 14669. It also wins data compression by 9.8%, with 62454 versus 56317. These are not small wins, and they indicate a specific strength in integer-heavy, compression-oriented tasks.

Looking at the aggregate benchmark average, the AMD part actually sits slightly higher: 6850 versus 6568 for the Atom. That puts the Athlon at the 63rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Atom sits at the 62nd percentile. The nearest rivals for the Atom include the Intel Core i5-13500E (average score 6586, delta -0.3%), the Intel Core i9-7960X (6533, delta 0.5%), and the Intel Core i9-10940X and Pentium Gold G6405 (both 6605, delta -0.6%). The Athlon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-1115G4 and AMD Athlon Silver 10 (both 6851 and 6849, delta 0%), plus the Intel Xeon W-2195 (6892, delta -0.6%) and Xeon Gold 6154 (6803, delta 0.7%). The two chips are effectively in the same performance class overall, but the distribution of that performance is very different.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two processors is wide. The Intel Atom x7405C uses the Amston Lake architecture, built on Gracemont cores, on a 10 nm process from Intel. The AMD Athlon X4 970 uses the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, on a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries. That process difference alone explains much of the power and efficiency gap.

The Atom has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The Athlon also has 4 cores and 4 threads, but its base clock is much higher at 3.80 GHz, boosting to 4.00 GHz. Despite the higher clocks, the Athlon carries a 65 W TDP versus the Atom’s 12 W. The Atom is a mobile segment part on Intel BGA 1264, while the Athlon is a desktop part on AMD Socket AM4.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The Atom’s L1 cache is listed as 96 KB per core, with 2 MB shared L2 and 6 MB shared L3. The Athlon has a total of 320 KB L1 and 2 MB L2, with no L3 cache at all. The Atom’s L3 cache is likely a major contributor to its strong multi-core and encryption scores, as it provides a larger pool for shared data.

Memory support also diverges. The Atom supports both DDR4 and DDR5, but only via a single-channel memory bus. The Athlon supports only DDR4, but with a dual-channel bus. Interestingly, both are listed with the same memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Atom has 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the Athlon has 8 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only). Neither supports ECC memory. The Atom’s integrated graphics are listed as N/A, while the Athlon’s integrated graphics field is null.

The Atom launched on 2024-04-07 with a launch MSRP of $57. The Athlon launched on 2017-07-26 with no recorded MSRP. The Atom’s part number is SRNEM; the Athlon’s is AD970XAUABBOXAD970XAUM44AB. The Atom’s transistor count and die size are not recorded, while the Athlon has 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Atom x7405C wins every rendering and synthetic compute test that stresses multi-core throughput and modern instruction efficiency. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core scores all show a 43.9% advantage. That consistency across three generations of the Cinebench test suggests a fundamental throughput advantage, not a workload-specific quirk. The same 43.9% delta appears in PassMark multithread, reinforcing that the Atom’s Gracemont cores deliver more aggregate work per clock in threaded scenarios.

The Atom also dominates encryption, physics, floating point math, prime number finding, extended instructions, and random string sorting. The 249.4% encryption lead is the single largest gap in the entire comparison. For anyone running AES-style workloads or data-at-rest encryption, the Atom is the clear choice. The physics test’s 89.3% lead further indicates stronger SIMD and floating-point pipeline utilization. The Atom’s single-thread advantage is small (1% in PassMark, 43.9% in Cinebench R23 single-core), but it still wins.

The AMD Athlon X4 970 wins only in PassMark integer math and data compression. The 23.5% integer math lead and the 9.8% data compression lead point to the Excavator architecture’s strength in simple, high-clock integer loops. The Athlon’s 3.80 GHz base clock and 4.00 GHz boost clock are substantially higher than the Atom’s 1.70 GHz base, and in workloads that are not limited by cache misses or instruction decode, that raw clock speed translates into real wins. Data compression, which often relies on integer comparison and byte manipulation, plays directly to that strength.

For a user, the split is clear: the Atom is for modern, multithreaded, security-sensitive, and floating-point-heavy tasks. The Athlon is for older-style integer crunching and compression workloads that do not need a large cache or advanced instruction scheduling.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher single-thread score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Atom x7405C scores 626 in Cinebench R23 single-core, versus 435 for the AMD Athlon X4 970, a 43.9% lead.

Q: Is the AMD Athlon X4 970 ever faster than the Intel Atom x7405C?

A: Yes, in two PassMark tests. The Athlon wins integer math by 23.5% (19174 vs 14669) and data compression by 9.8% (62454 vs 56317).

Q: How do the two chips compare in power consumption?

A: The Atom has a 12 W TDP, while the Athlon has a 65 W TDP. The Atom also uses a 10 nm process, while the Athlon uses 28 nm.

Q: Which chip has more cache?

A: The Atom has 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Athlon has 320 KB total L1 and 2 MB L2, with no L3 cache.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: No. Both are listed with ECC memory as false.

Q: What is the overall percentile ranking for each?

A: The Atom sits at the 62nd percentile of all CPUs, and the Athlon sits at the 63rd percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 6568 and 6850, respectively.

The Verdict

The data presents two CPUs that are close in overall standing but radically different in behavior. The Intel Atom x7405C is the better chip for almost every modern workload category. It wins 14 of 16 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench test, every encryption and floating-point test, and the multithread test. Its 6 MB L3 cache and 10 nm process give it a structural advantage that clock speed alone cannot overcome. The 249.4% encryption lead and 89.3% physics lead are decisive for any application in those domains.

The AMD Athlon X4 970 is not without merit. Its 23.5% integer math win and 9.8% data compression win show that for specific, clock-hungry integer tasks, the older Excavator design can still outpace the newer Gracemont cores. The higher base clock of 3.80 GHz is the obvious driver. If a workload is purely integer-bound and fits within the 2 MB L2, the Athlon will outperform the Atom.

But the Athlon’s 65 W TDP versus the Atom’s 12 W TDP means it draws more than five times the power for a narrower set of wins. The Atom’s single-thread advantage, while small in PassMark (1%), is large in Cinebench (43.9%), indicating that the Gracemont cores are more efficient at translating clock cycles into useful work. The Atom also supports DDR5 memory, which the Athlon does not, and it has a larger L3 cache.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. If the primary tasks are compression or integer-heavy legacy applications, the Athlon’s two wins are real and measurable. For everything else, including all rendering, all encryption, all floating-point math, and any multithreaded workload, the Atom is faster, often by large margins. The database’s overall scores put the Athlon only 4.3% higher on average (6850 vs 6568), but that average is pulled up by its two dominant integer wins. The Atom is the more balanced, more efficient, and more future-proof part. The Athlon is a niche performer with a specific strength. The recorded data favors the Atom for general use and the Athlon only for integer-heavy compression tasks.