AMD EPYC 7453 vs Intel Atom x7809C Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusually one-sided contest. Across all six directly compared workloads, the AMD EPYC 7453 wins decisively. The Intel Atom x7809C does not secure a single victory in the head-to-head set. The deltas are remarkably consistent, hovering around negative 80.6 percent for every test except Cinebench R15 single-core, where the deficit is slightly larger at negative 80.7 percent.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7453 scores 41,185 against the Atom’s 7,997. That is a difference of 33,188 points, translating to an 80.6 percent advantage for the AMD part. The single-core R23 result tells a similar story: 5,814 versus 1,129. The EPYC’s lead is equally pronounced in R20 multi-core (17,297 vs. 3,358) and R20 single-core (2,441 vs. 474). Even in the older R15 tests, the pattern holds: 4,151 vs. 805 multi-core and 585 vs. 113 single-core.

What does this mean in practical terms? The EPYC 7453 is roughly five times faster in every measured Cinebench scenario. The consistency of the negative 80.6 percent delta across different generations of the Cinebench suite indicates a structural performance gap, not a workload-specific anomaly. The Atom x7809C’s average benchmark score of 12,607 actually places it slightly above the EPYC’s 11,912 in the overall database average, but that average includes many additional PassMark tests where the Atom has data and the EPYC does not. Within the shared test suite, the EPYC dominates completely.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 wins all six head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Atom x7809C has zero wins in the direct comparison set.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 7453 scores 41,185 while the Atom x7809C scores 7,997. This represents an 80.6 percent deficit for the Atom in that specific test.

Q: Does the Atom x7809C have any advantage in single-core performance?

A: No. The EPYC 7453 leads by 80.6 percent in Cinebench R23 single-core (5,814 vs. 1,129) and by 80.7 percent in Cinebench R15 single-core (585 vs. 113).

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor in the database?

A: The Intel Atom x7809C has an average benchmark score of 12,607, while the AMD EPYC 7453 averages 11,912. The Atom’s higher average is influenced by its broader set of recorded PassMark tests.

Q: How does each processor rank among all CPUs?

A: Both processors sit at the 67th percentile when compared to all CPUs in the database. Despite the massive head-to-head gap, they occupy the same percentile rank.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 has 28 cores and 56 threads. The Intel Atom x7809C has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two parts is fundamental. The Intel Atom x7809C uses the Amston Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process by Intel. Its codename is Amston Lake, and it belongs to the Atom (Gracemont) generation. The AMD EPYC 7453 uses Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, built on a 7 nm process by TSMC. The EPYC belongs to the EPYC 7003 series and the EPYC (Zen 3 (Milan)) generation.

The cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Atom has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per module, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a much larger 64 MB of shared L3 cache. That L3 difference alone is substantial: 64 MB versus 6 MB, a tenfold gap in shared cache capacity.

The memory subsystems also diverge sharply. The Atom supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a single-channel bus, with 38.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The EPYC supports DDR4 through an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. That is more than five times the memory bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Atom does not.

PCIe connectivity reveals another tier difference. The Atom provides PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC provides PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC’s lane count is over 14 times higher, and its PCIe generation is newer. The Atom integrates no graphics, and the EPYC’s integrated graphics field is empty, meaning neither part relies on built-in GPU capabilities.

The physical design differs as well. The Atom uses an Intel BGA 1264 socket and is marked as a mobile segment part. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3 and is marked for server/workstation use. The EPYC’s transistor count is listed at 16,600 million, with a die size of 4x 81 mm². The Atom’s transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every measurable specification. Core count is the most obvious: the EPYC 7453 has 28 cores versus the Atom’s 8, and 56 threads versus 8. The base clock differs: the EPYC runs at 2.75 GHz, the Atom at 2.00 GHz. The boost clock is closer, with the EPYC at 3.45 GHz and the Atom at 3.60 GHz. The Atom actually boosts higher, but the EPYC’s higher base clock and vastly higher core count dominate real-world throughput.

Thermal design power is a major separator. The EPYC 7453 has a TDP of 225, while the Atom x7809C has a TDP of 25. That is a ninefold difference in power envelope. The EPYC is built for socketed server platforms; the Atom is a soldered mobile part. The EPYC’s memory bus is eight-channel versus the Atom’s single-channel. The EPYC’s memory bandwidth is 204.8 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the Atom does not. The EPYC’s PCIe is Gen 4 with 128 lanes; the Atom’s is Gen 3 with 9 lanes.

The process nodes differ: 7 nm for the EPYC (TSMC) versus 10 nm for the Atom (Intel). The release dates are separated by roughly three years: the EPYC launched in March 2021, the Atom in April 2024. The EPYC’s launch MSRP is $1,570. The Atom’s launch MSRP is $117. Both parts are currently marked as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 7453 is the overwhelmingly faster processor in every shared benchmark. It wins all six head-to-head tests by roughly 80 percent margins. If the selection criterion is raw compute performance in Cinebench workloads, the EPYC 7453 is the only choice between these two.

The Intel Atom x7809C does have a role, but it is not a performance role. Its TDP of 25 versus 225 indicates a fundamentally different design target. The Atom is a low-power, mobile-oriented part with single-channel memory and 9 PCIe lanes. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with eight-channel memory, 128 PCIe lanes, and ECC support. The data suggests these chips should never be cross-shopped for the same workload.

The database’s average benchmark scores complicate the narrative slightly. The Atom’s average of 12,607 exceeds the EPYC’s 11,912, and both sit at the 67th percentile. This is because the Atom has 17 recorded benchmarks, including many PassMark tests, while the EPYC has only 6 recorded Cinebench tests. Within the tests both share, the EPYC wins every time. The average score is a misleading summary statistic here; the head-to-head results are the relevant comparison.

For a user needing maximum multi-threaded throughput, the EPYC 7453 delivers 41,185 in Cinebench R23 multi-core. For a user with minimal power budget and modest compute needs, the Atom’s 7,997 in the same test may suffice, but it is not competitive with the EPYC by any performance measure.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7453 wins in every measured compute category. Multi-core rendering: 80.6 percent ahead. Single-core rendering: 80.6 percent ahead. This includes all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 variants. The EPYC’s 28 cores, 56 threads, 64 MB of L3 cache, and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth combine to produce results the Atom cannot approach.

The Intel Atom x7809C does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it has structural advantages that matter outside raw speed. Its TDP is 25, which is 200 watts lower than the EPYC’s 225. It supports DDR5 memory, while the EPYC is limited to DDR4. Its boost clock of 3.60 GHz is higher than the EPYC’s 3.45 GHz, though this does not translate into any benchmark victory. Its launch MSRP of $117 is substantially lower than the EPYC’s $1,570.

The Atom’s market segment is mobile, and its socket is BGA 1264, meaning it is designed for embedded or laptop-style integration. The EPYC is a socketed SP3 server part. The Atom’s 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are sufficient for light expansion; the EPYC’s 128 Gen 4 lanes support massive I/O configurations. The Atom lacks ECC memory support; the EPYC includes it.

In summary, the EPYC 7453 wins every benchmark, every architectural comparison, and every specification that favors compute capability. The Atom x7809C wins on power efficiency, newer memory type support, and lower launch price. For compute-bound server workloads, the EPYC is the clear victor. For low-power mobile or embedded use cases where the EPYC cannot physically fit or operate, the Atom has a purpose. The data does not support any scenario where the Atom outperforms the EPYC on processing speed.