AMD EPYC 7351P vs Intel Atom x7433RE Comparison

The Intel Atom x7433RE and AMD EPYC 7351P occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet both currently hold an “Active” production status. The data reveals a stark performance chasm: across five head-to-head Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7351P wins every single round, often by a margin of roughly 84%. However, the Atom counters with a dramatically lower 9W TDP versus the EPYC’s 170W, a difference that defines their respective use cases. This analysis explores what those benchmark deltas mean in practice, and why a 61st-percentile ranking applies to both.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7351P scores 22,135 against the Atom’s 3,535, a delta of -84% from the Atom’s perspective. This pattern repeats across the board. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows the EPYC at 9,296 versus 1,484 for the Atom, again an 84% deficit. Even in single-core tests, where the Atom’s higher 3.40 GHz boost clock might suggest competitiveness, the EPYC dominates: Cinebench R23 single-core sees the EPYC score 3,125 versus 499 for the Atom, another -84% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core is similarly lopsided at 1,312 versus 209 (-84.1%).

These numbers tell a story of architectural scale rather than clock-speed efficiency. The EPYC’s 16 cores and 32 threads overwhelm the Atom’s 4 cores and 4 threads in every threaded workload. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test is the closest comparison in relative terms, yet still shows the EPYC at 2,231 versus 356 for the Atom, a -84% gap. Notably, the head-to-head data lists no benchmarks where the Atom wins; `winsA` is 0, `winsB` is 5.

What does this mean for real-world use? The EPYC’s multi-core scores suggest it can handle heavy parallel rendering or virtualization workloads with ease. The Atom’s scores, while far lower, are not zero — they indicate a processor capable of light, power-constrained tasks. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the Atom posts an average of 5,601, while the EPYC posts 5,469. Despite the EPYC’s massive wins in Cinebench, its average is dragged down by other factors, and both land in the 61st percentile of all CPUs. This parity in percentile, despite the head-to-head wipeout, points to the Atom’s efficiency in specific workloads like PassMark integer math (13,054) or floating-point math (8,582), where the EPYC has no comparable data.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD EPYC 7351P win every head-to-head benchmark?

A: The data shows the EPYC leads in all five Cinebench tests, with deltas of -84% or -84.1% for the Atom. This stems from the EPYC’s 16 cores and 32 threads versus the Atom’s 4 cores and 4 threads, allowing it to process far more parallel work simultaneously.

Q: Is the Intel Atom x7433RE competitive in single-core performance?

A: No. Despite a higher boost clock (3.40 GHz vs 2.90 GHz), the Atom loses single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 3,125 versus 499 for the Atom, an 84% difference. The Atom’s single-thread PassMark score is 1,568, but no comparable EPYC figure exists in the pack.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Atom has a higher average benchmark score at 5,601, versus 5,469 for the EPYC. However, this is misleading because the datasets differ. The Atom includes PassMark scores (e.g., 43,671 in data compression), while the EPYC includes Geekbench scores (e.g., 4,607 multi-core). Both CPUs sit in the 61st percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Atom has a 9W TDP, while the EPYC has a 170W TDP. This is a 161W difference, making the Atom suitable for fanless or battery-powered designs, whereas the EPYC requires robust server cooling.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 7351P lists `eccMemory: true`. The Intel Atom x7433RE does not support ECC, a critical distinction for server reliability where data corruption is unacceptable.

Q: Are there any benchmark wins for the Intel Atom?

A: In the provided head-to-head data, no. The Atom records 0 wins (`winsA: 0`), while the EPYC records 5 wins (`winsB: 5`). The Atom’s advantages lie outside these Cinebench tests, such as in PassMark integer math (13,054) or random string sorting (5,399), where no EPYC comparison exists.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct buyers. For anyone running multi-threaded server workloads — Cinebench R23 multi-core at 22,135 versus 3,535 — the AMD EPYC 7351P is the only rational choice. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, and 64 MB of L3 cache provide the muscle needed for rendering, database queries, or virtual machine hosts. The EPYC also offers ECC memory support and an eight-channel memory bus (170.6 GB/s bandwidth), which are non-negotiable for enterprise reliability.

Conversely, the Intel Atom x7433RE is for a buyer who prioritizes power efficiency above all else. With a 9W TDP, it can run on passive cooling in industrial or edge devices. Its 4 cores and 4 threads are sufficient for light control-plane tasks or simple data logging. The Atom’s 61st-percentile ranking, equal to the EPYC’s, comes from its specialized PassMark scores like data encryption (3,029) or physics (323), which suggest niche strengths where the EPYC has no data. If your workload fits within a single thread or low-power envelope, the Atom’s 3.40 GHz boost clock offers responsiveness without the EPYC’s power draw.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every spec. The Atom uses 4 cores and 4 threads; the EPYC uses 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, but boost clocks flip that: the Atom boosts to 3.40 GHz, while the EPYC boosts to only 2.90 GHz. TDP is the starkest contrast: 9W for the Atom versus 170W for the EPYC. Sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1264 versus AMD Socket SP3. The Atom is a 10nm part from Intel; the EPYC is a 14nm part from GlobalFoundries. Cache structures differ fundamentally: the Atom has 2 MB shared L2 and 6 MB shared L3, while the EPYC has 512 KB per-core L2 and 64 MB shared L3. Memory support: the Atom handles DDR4 and DDR5 with a single-channel 38.4 GB/s bus; the EPYC handles only DDR4 but with an eight-channel 170.6 GB/s bus. ECC is absent on the Atom, present on the EPYC. The Atom has integrated UHD Graphics 32EU; the EPYC has none. The Atom is unlocked? No. The EPYC has an unlocked multiplier. The Atom’s PCIe is Gen 3 with 9 lanes; the EPYC is Gen 3 with no lane count listed.

Architecture Differences

The Atom is built on Intel’s “Amston Lake” architecture, specifically the Atom (Gracemont) generation, using a 10nm process. It is a mobile-market chip with a 9W TDP, designed for efficiency. The EPYC is AMD’s “Naples” architecture, part of the EPYC 7001 series, using the original Zen core on a 14nm process from GlobalFoundries. It is a server/workstation part with 170W TDP. The EPYC’s die size is 213 mm² with 4,800 million transistors; the Atom’s transistor count and die size are not listed. The Atom’s cache is per-core L1 of 96 KB, shared L2 of 2 MB, and shared L3 of 6 MB. The EPYC also has 96 KB L1 per core, but L2 is 512 KB per core, and L3 is 64 MB shared. The Atom lacks ECC, while the EPYC supports it. The Atom has integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 32EU), a feature absent on the EPYC. The EPYC’s memory controller is eight-channel, versus single-channel on the Atom, which explains the bandwidth gap (170.6 GB/s vs 38.4 GB/s). The Atom has a newer release date (April 2024) versus the EPYC (June 2017), but the EPYC remains active.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7351P wins in any multi-threaded, compute-heavy scenario. Cinebench R23 multi-core at 22,135 versus 3,535 means it is roughly 6 times faster in that test. This translates to 3D rendering, video encoding, or compiling large codebases. The EPYC’s 64 MB L3 cache and 32 threads make it ideal for database workloads or virtualization, where memory bandwidth (170.6 GB/s) and ECC are critical. Its Geekbench multi-core score of 4,607, while not compared head-to-head, indicates solid general server performance.

The Intel Atom x7433RE wins in power-constrained environments. With a 9W TDP, it can be embedded in devices where heat dissipation is minimal. Its PassMark data compression score of 43,671 is surprisingly high, suggesting it handles compression algorithms efficiently. The Atom’s integer math score of 13,054 and floating-point math of 8,582 indicate it can manage light to moderate calculation loads. Its single-thread PassMark of 1,568 shows it is not sluggish for basic tasks, and the integrated UHD Graphics 32EU eliminates the need for a separate GPU. The Atom’s DDR5 support is a future-proofing advantage, though its single-channel bus limits bandwidth. In short: pick the EPYC for raw throughput and reliability; pick the Atom for portability, low power, and edge computing where every watt matters.