AMD EPYC 72F3 vs Intel Atom x7405C Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 72F3 across all six recorded Cinebench tests, with the Intel Atom x7405C finishing behind in every single measurement. The most striking result is in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, where the EPYC 72F3 scores 23,164 against the Atom's 4,435, a delta of 422.3% in favor of AMD. This is not a marginal advantage; it is a category-level gap that places the two processors in entirely different performance tiers.

Single-core results tell the same story with even larger percentage deltas. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC 72F3 scores 329 versus the Atom's 62, a 430.6% advantage. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows 1,373 against 262, a 424% delta, and Cinebench R23 single-core records 3,270 versus 626, a 422.4% gap. These numbers indicate that the AMD part is not merely faster in multi-threaded workloads due to its higher core count; it also dominates in lightly threaded scenarios where clock speed and per-core efficiency matter most.

The multi-core deltas are remarkably consistent, hovering between 422% and 423% across all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23). The EPYC 72F3 delivers 2,334 in R15 multi-core versus 446, 9,728 versus 1,862 in R20, and the aforementioned 23,164 versus 4,435 in R23. This consistency suggests the performance gap scales uniformly with workload intensity, rather than being an artifact of any single benchmark version.

For context, the EPYC 72F3's average benchmark score sits at 6,700, placing it within 0.1% of the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 (6,710) and 0.2% of the Intel Xeon D-2775TE (6,711). It is 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i9-9940X and 0.8% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X. The Atom x7405C, despite its lower individual benchmark scores, posts an average of 6,568, which lands it 0.3% behind the Intel Core i5-13500E and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-7960X. Both processors sit at the 62nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, an interesting coincidence given the massive performance disparity in direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is fundamental. The AMD EPYC 72F3 is built on TSMC's 7 nm process with Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, while the Intel Atom x7405C uses Intel's 10 nm process with Gracemont cores under the Amston Lake codename. The EPYC packs 8 cores and 16 threads, whereas the Atom offers only 4 cores and 4 threads, so the AMD part has both twice the physical cores and simultaneous multithreading that the Intel part lacks entirely.

Clock speeds reinforce the core-count advantage. The EPYC 72F3 runs at a 3.70 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.10 GHz, while the Atom operates at 1.70 GHz base with a 3.40 GHz boost. Even at peak boost, the Atom's 3.40 GHz does not reach the EPYC's base clock of 3.70 GHz. This explains why the single-core benchmark deltas are so large: the AMD chip has a higher base, higher boost, and a more powerful core architecture.

Cache hierarchies diverge dramatically. The EPYC 72F3 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Atom x7405C offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and only 6 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's 256 MB L3 is over 42 times larger than the Atom's 6 MB, a difference that shows up in workloads with large working sets where cache hits avoid memory round-trips.

Memory support is another clear separator. The EPYC 72F3 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Atom supports DDR4 and DDR5 but only through a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s. That is a 5.3x bandwidth advantage for the AMD part. The EPYC also includes ECC memory support, while the Atom does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes, whereas the Atom offers Gen 3 with only 9 lanes. The EPYC targets the server/workstation segment with an AMD Socket SP3, while the Atom is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1264.

Transistor counts and die size are only recorded for the EPYC 72F3, which contains 33,200 million transistors across a multi-die design of 8x 81 mm². No comparable figures exist for the Atom in the database. The EPYC's power envelope is 180 W TDP, while the Atom draws only 12 W, a 15x difference that reflects the Intel part's efficiency-focused mobile positioning.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 72F3 wins every recorded benchmark category, making it the clear choice for compute-intensive workloads. Its 256 MB L3 cache and eight-channel memory subsystem make it suited for large database operations, virtualization hosts, and scientific computing where memory bandwidth and cache capacity directly impact throughput. The 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes support high-density storage or GPU configurations, and the ECC memory support is essential for reliability in server environments. The 4.10 GHz boost clock ensures that even single-threaded legacy applications run quickly, which is unusual for a server part.

The Intel Atom x7405C, despite losing all head-to-head tests, has its own domain based on the data. Its 12 W TDP is remarkably low, and its mobile socket (BGA 1264) indicates deployment in fanless or passively cooled systems, edge gateways, or low-power network appliances. The PassMark results for the Atom show strengths in specific workloads: 56,317 in data compression, 14,669 in integer math, and 9,063 in floating-point math. These scores, while far below the EPYC's Cinebench results, indicate the Atom can handle modest data-processing tasks that do not require the EPYC's massive compute resources.

The single-channel memory and 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes limit the Atom to light I/O scenarios, but its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 gives platform flexibility. The 2 MB shared L2 and 6 MB L3 are adequate for small-footprint embedded workloads. The Atom's 62nd percentile ranking among all CPUs, identical to the EPYC's percentile, suggests that in the broader database context, the Atom is not an outlier; it performs comparably to mid-range desktop processors like the Intel Pentium Gold G6405, which sits within 0.6% of its average score.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 72F3 wins all three single-core Cinebench tests. In R15, it scores 329 versus 62 (a 430.6% delta); in R20, 1,373 versus 262 (424%); and in R23, 3,270 versus 626 (422.4%).

Q: How do the multi-core scores compare?

A: The EPYC 72F3 leads by roughly 422% in every multi-core test. R15 shows 2,334 versus 446, R20 shows 9,728 versus 1,862, and R23 shows 23,164 versus 4,435. The deltas are 423.3%, 422.4%, and 422.3% respectively.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 72F3 provides 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR4 bus. The Atom x7405C provides 38.4 GB/s over a single-channel bus that supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The EPYC has 5.3 times the bandwidth.

Q: Does the Atom support ECC memory?

A: No. The database records ECC memory support as true for the EPYC 72F3 and false for the Atom x7405C.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The EPYC 72F3 has a TDP of 180 W, while the Atom x7405C has a TDP of 12 W. The Atom uses 15 times less power.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to nearby rivals?

A: The EPYC 72F3 averages 6,700, which is 0.1% below the Xeon Gold 5317 and 0.2% below the Xeon D-2775TE. The Atom x7405C averages 6,568, which is 0.3% below the Core i5-13500E and 0.5% above the Core i9-7960X.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 72F3 is the superior processor for any compute-bound task. It wins 6 out of 6 head-to-head benchmarks, with deltas ranging from 422.3% to 430.6%. Its 8 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 4.10 GHz boost clock and 256 MB L3 cache, make it a high-end server/workstation part that outperforms the Atom by a factor of roughly five in both single- and multi-threaded Cinebench tests. The EPYC's 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, and ECC support further cement its position for enterprise workloads where data integrity and I/O throughput are critical.

The Intel Atom x7405C, conversely, is a low-power mobile processor with a 12 W TDP. It loses every direct comparison, but its PassMark results show it can handle basic data compression (56,317), integer math (14,669), and floating-point math (9,063) tasks. Its 38.4 GB/s single-channel memory bandwidth and 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes place it firmly in lightweight embedded or edge applications. The Atom's release date of April 2024 makes it a newer design than the EPYC's March 2021 launch, but the EPYC's launch MSRP of $2468 reflects its enterprise positioning, while the Atom's launch MSRP of $57 indicates a cost-sensitive mobile market.

For users who need raw compute, the EPYC 72F3 is the only choice between these two. For users who prioritize power efficiency and operate in thermally constrained environments, the Atom x7405C serves a different purpose entirely. The 62nd percentile ranking for both processors in the database suggests that each is average within its own reference class, but the classes are worlds apart.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 72F3 | Intel Atom x7405C |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 8 | 4 |

| Threads | 16 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.70 GHz | 1.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 12 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Amston Lake |

| Codename | Milan | Amston Lake |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2 MB (shared) |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 Lanes | Gen 3, 9 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | N/A |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | March 2021 | April 2024 |

| Launch MSRP | $2468 | $57 |

| Transistors | 33,200 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 8x 81 mm² | Not recorded |