AMD EPYC 7402P vs Intel Atom x7835RE Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7402P and Intel Atom x7835RE occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet benchmark aggregation places them within 1.1% of each other in average score. This statistical proximity masks a chasm in design philosophy, core counts, and intended workloads. The EPYC 7402P is a 24-core, 48-thread server processor built for sustained throughput, while the Atom x7835RE is an 8-core, 8-thread mobile chip with a 12W TDP. The data shows a clear division: the EPYC wins every single head-to-head benchmark by margins exceeding 500%, while the Atom counters with a fraction of the power draw and a far lower launch MSRP. The following analysis breaks down where each processor justifies its existence.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7402P wins in every measured compute benchmark, with no contest in any category. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core tests, the EPYC 7402P dominates with deltas ranging from 514.7% to 522.4%. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational gap in raw processing capability. The EPYC’s 24 cores and 48 threads, combined with a 128 MB shared L3 cache, allow it to excel in multi-threaded server workloads, database queries, virtualization, and content rendering. Its 7 nm Zen 2 architecture, fabricated by TSMC, delivers a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz, making it suitable for both latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks and massively parallel operations.

The Intel Atom x7835RE, despite losing all six head-to-head benchmarks, wins in the context of power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 12W TDP is a fraction of the EPYC’s 180W, making it ideal for fanless embedded systems, industrial IoT gateways, and portable devices where heat dissipation and battery life are paramount. Its 8 Gracemont cores (Amston Lake architecture) boost up to 3.60 GHz, which is higher than the EPYC’s boost clock, yet its single-channel memory and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth limit its ceiling. The Atom also includes integrated UHD Graphics 32EU, a feature the EPYC lacks entirely, giving it a win in scenarios requiring basic display output without a discrete GPU. Its PassMark data compression score of 76736 suggests utility in specific storage or networking tasks, though its overall compute profile is best suited for lightweight, always-on duty.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark. The EPYC 7402P is built on TSMC’s 7 nm process with 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, representing the Zen 2 microarchitecture under the Rome codename. It supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a peak bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, and provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, enabling massive I/O expansion for enterprise storage and accelerator cards. Its L3 cache is 128 MB shared across all cores, a design that minimizes latency for frequently accessed data across the entire die. This is a processor engineered for data center density and high-bandwidth workloads, with ECC memory support and a server socket (AMD Socket SP3).

The Atom x7835RE, conversely, is fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process and uses the Gracemont efficiency cores, part of the Amston Lake family. It has 8 cores and 8 threads with no hyper-threading, reflecting a simpler out-of-order execution design. Its cache hierarchy is notably different: 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per module, and only 6 MB of shared L3. This smaller cache footprint, combined with single-channel DDR4 or DDR5 memory support (38.4 GB/s), creates a bottleneck for multi-threaded workloads. The Atom supports PCIe Gen 3 with just 9 lanes, limiting expansion to basic peripherals. It lacks ECC memory support and instead integrates UHD Graphics 32EU, a feature that makes it self-sufficient for display tasks. Its BGA 1264 socket suggests it is soldered directly to motherboards, unlike the EPYC’s socketed SP3 design.

The process node difference (7 nm vs 10 nm) partially explains the EPYC’s superior transistor density, but the core count disparity (24 vs 8) is the primary driver of benchmark results. The EPYC’s 48 threads allow for twice the simultaneous operations per clock cycle compared to the Atom’s 8 threads, even before considering clock speeds and cache sizes. The Atom’s boost clock of 3.60 GHz is higher than the EPYC’s 3.35 GHz, but the EPYC’s base clock of 2.80 GHz is over twice the Atom’s 1.30 GHz, indicating that the Atom must aggressively ramp to achieve peak performance and likely sustains lower averages.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 3749 versus the Atom’s 609, a 515.6% delta. This pattern repeats across every test. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 529 versus 85, a 522.4% delta, proving that even in lightly threaded workloads, the EPYC’s Zen 2 core is dramatically faster than the Atom’s Gracemont core. Moving to R20, the multi-core scores are 15621 versus 2541 (514.8% delta), and single-core is 2205 versus 358 (515.9% delta). The R23 results continue the trend: multi-core 37195 versus 6051 (514.7% delta) and single-core 5251 versus 854 (514.9% delta).

The consistency of these deltas, all hovering around 515%, suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The EPYC’s 128 MB L3 cache and eight-channel memory provide a bandwidth advantage that scales across all core counts. The Atom’s 6 MB L3 and single-channel memory severely limit its ability to feed data to its cores, even when clocked higher. For instance, in PassMark integer math, the Atom scores 26623, which seems respectable, but this test is not part of the head-to-head comparison. The only benchmarks shared between the two are the six Cinebench tests, and the EPYC wins all six. The winsA count is 6, winsB is 0.

In terms of average benchmark scores, the EPYC’s 9529 versus the Atom’s 9430 (a 1.1% delta) is misleading because the average includes different benchmark suites. The EPYC’s suite includes Geekbench scores (10476 multi-core, 1204 single-core), while the Atom’s suite includes PassMark tests (e.g., floating point 16236, find prime numbers 23). These are not directly comparable, but the nearest rival data places both processors at the 65th percentile of all CPUs, indicating that while they are statistically similar in aggregate, their performance profiles are orthogonal. The EPYC sits near the Intel Core i7-7700HQ (0.4% delta), while the Atom sits near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX (0.9% delta), suggesting that each competes with different classes of hardware despite similar averages.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear choice based on workload. The AMD EPYC 7402P is the processor for any application demanding raw compute, multi-threading, or high memory bandwidth. Its 24 cores, 48 threads, 128 MB L3 cache, and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth make it suitable for server virtualization, scientific computing, and heavy rendering. The 515% lead in Cinebench multi-core tests is not a nuance; it is a decisive victory that cannot be overcome by any software optimization. For users running databases, compiling large codebases, or hosting multiple virtual machines, the EPYC 7402P is the only rational choice between these two. Its launch MSRP is $1280, which reflects its enterprise positioning.

The Intel Atom x7835RE is the processor for embedded and mobile applications where power consumption and thermal limits trump performance. Its 12W TDP, compared to the EPYC’s 180W, allows for passive cooling solutions and battery-powered operation. The inclusion of integrated UHD Graphics 32EU eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. Its launch MSRP is $127, making it a low-cost option for control systems, network appliances, or thin clients. However, its 8 threads and 6 MB L3 cache mean it will struggle with any multi-threaded workload, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6051 versus the EPYC’s 37195. The Atom’s higher boost clock (3.60 GHz) offers snappy single-threaded response for interactive tasks, but its single-channel memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s) limits sustained throughput.

Neither processor is a substitute for the other. The EPYC 7402P cannot be used in a 12W envelope, and the Atom x7835RE cannot deliver server-grade performance. The 1.1% average score difference is a statistical artifact of combining disparate benchmark suites. In any benchmark where both are measured, the EPYC wins by a factor of six. The verdict is straightforward: choose the EPYC for performance, the Atom for efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Atom x7835RE has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 7402P scores 37195, while the Atom x7835RE scores 6051, giving the EPYC a 514.7% advantage.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402P supports ECC memory; the Intel Atom x7835RE does not.

Q: Does the Intel Atom x7835RE have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes UHD Graphics 32EU. The AMD EPYC 7402P has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7402P offers 204.8 GB/s via eight-channel DDR4, while the Atom x7835RE offers 38.4 GB/s via single-channel DDR4 or DDR5.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7402P averages 9529, and the Atom x7835RE averages 9430, a 1.1% difference. However, the EPYC wins all six shared head-to-head tests by over 500%.