CPU Comparison

AMD EPYC 7502 and Intel Atom x7809C represent opposite ends of the server and embedded computing spectrum. The 32-core Zen 2 Rome chip is a dual-socket data center workhorse, while the 8-core Gracemont Atom is a low-power embedded part. Benchmark data shows a complete sweep: the EPYC 7502 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 449.4% to 453.1% in its favor. The Atom x7809C does not win a single benchmark in this comparison. However, both processors share the same 67th percentile ranking among all CPUs, a statistical curiosity driven by their very different average benchmark scores across broader test suites.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are not close. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7502 scores 4428 against the Atom’s 805, a 450.1% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 625 versus 113, a 453.1% lead for AMD. Moving to R20, the EPYC 7502 posts 18454 multi-core and 2605 single-core, while the Atom manages 3358 and 474 respectively, both results are 449.6% higher on the AMD side. The R23 results continue the pattern: 43940 versus 7997 in multi-core (449.5% delta) and 6203 versus 1129 in single-core (449.4% delta).

The consistency of the performance gap is notable. Across all six tests, the EPYC 7502 leads by roughly the same 450% margin, regardless of workload type or core count sensitivity. This suggests the difference is not merely core count but fundamental architectural throughput. The EPYC 7502’s 32 cores and 64 threads allow massive parallel scaling, while the Atom’s 8 cores and 8 threads cap its multi-threaded output. Even in single-core tests, where the Atom’s 3.60 GHz boost clock is higher than the EPYC’s 3.35 GHz boost, the Zen 2 core delivers over five times the score. This indicates IPC superiority that clock speed cannot compensate for.

The Atom x7809C does have additional PassMark benchmarks not present for the EPYC 7502, including data compression at 111525, data encryption at 7832, and integer math at 28946. These scores are not directly comparable since the EPYC 7502 lacks matching tests in the data. What is clear from the head-to-head section is that in every Cinebench iteration, the EPYC 7502 dominates. The smallest delta is 449.4% in R23 single-core; the largest is 453.1% in R15 single-core. No benchmark in this comparison favors the Atom.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Atom x7809C win any benchmarks against the AMD EPYC 7502?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows 6 wins for the EPYC 7502 and 0 wins for the Atom x7809C across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests.

Q: What is the single biggest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest delta is 453.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC 7502 scores 625 versus the Atom’s 113.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7502 has an average benchmark score of 12709, while the Atom x7809C averages 12607. Despite the massive Cinebench gap, their averages are close because the Atom includes additional PassMark tests in its dataset.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are in the 67th percentile of all CPUs, even though the EPYC 7502 has a slightly higher average score (12709 vs 12607).

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Atom x7809C has a 3.60 GHz boost clock, which is higher than the EPYC 7502’s 3.35 GHz boost clock. This does not translate to better benchmark performance.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each support?

A: The EPYC 7502 supports 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR4 bus, while the Atom x7809C supports 38.4 GB/s over a single-channel DDR4/DDR5 bus.

Architecture Differences

The two chips are built on fundamentally different philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7502 uses the Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process, with a chiplet design that scales to 32 cores and 64 threads. Its codename is Rome, and it is part of the EPYC 7002 series. The Intel Atom x7809C uses the Amston Lake architecture with Gracemont cores on Intel’s 10 nm process, limited to 8 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC 7502’s process node advantage (7 nm vs 10 nm) contributes to its higher transistor density and efficiency per core, though the Atom compensates with a much lower 25 W TDP versus 180 W.

Cache configurations differ substantially. Both have 96 KB of L1 cache per core. The EPYC 7502 has 512 KB of L2 per core, while the Atom has 2 MB per module. The L3 cache is the major differentiator: the EPYC 7502 has 128 MB shared L3, whereas the Atom has only 6 MB shared L3. This 122 MB difference explains why the EPYC 7502 sustains high throughput in multi-threaded workloads that repeatedly access working sets. The Atom’s smaller cache is better suited for latency-sensitive, low-footprint embedded tasks.

Memory architecture is another split. The EPYC 7502 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory. The Atom x7809C supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but only on a single-channel bus, yielding just 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and it does not support ECC. PCIe generation also differs: the EPYC 7502 uses Gen 4, while the Atom uses Gen 3 with only 9 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC 7502 has no integrated graphics; the Atom lists integrated graphics as N/A. The two sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel BGA 1264.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals the scale of divergence. The EPYC 7502 has 32 cores and 64 threads; the Atom x7809C has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for AMD and 2.00 GHz for Intel, but boost clocks reverse the order: 3.35 GHz for AMD, 3.60 GHz for Intel. TDP is the starkest difference, 180 W for the EPYC 7502 versus 25 W for the Atom. The EPYC 7502 uses AMD Socket SP3, the Atom uses Intel BGA 1264. Process nodes are 7 nm (TSMC) versus 10 nm (Intel). The EPYC 7502 lists 3,800 million transistors and a 74 mm² die size; the Atom has no listed transistor count or die size.

Cache specs: L1 is identical at 96 KB per core. L2 differs: 512 KB per core on the EPYC versus 2 MB per module on the Atom. L3 is 128 MB shared versus 6 MB shared, a 21.3x difference. Memory support: DDR4 eight-channel versus DDR4/DDR5 single-channel. Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. ECC is supported on the EPYC 7502 but not the Atom. PCIe: Gen 4 on AMD versus Gen 3 with 9 lanes on Intel. The EPYC 7502 has no integrated graphics; the Atom lists N/A. Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Mobile. Release dates: 2019-08-06 for the EPYC 7502, 2024-04-07 for the Atom. The Atom has a launch MSRP of $117; the EPYC 7502 has no launch MSRP listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7502 wins every benchmark in this comparison, so its advantages are clear. It dominates multi-core workloads: Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 43940 versus 7997, a 5.5x lead. This makes it the choice for virtualization, database serving, and any workload that scales across 32 cores and 64 threads. The 128 MB L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth support large in-memory datasets. The eight-channel DDR4 bus provides the memory parallelism needed for enterprise workloads. ECC memory support is critical for server reliability.

The Intel Atom x7809C wins on power efficiency and physical footprint. At 25 W TDP versus 180 W, it consumes 87% less power. Its single-channel memory and 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are designed for compact, embedded applications where the EPYC 7502’s massive socket and power delivery requirements are impractical. The Atom’s 3.60 GHz boost clock is higher than the EPYC’s 3.35 GHz, but benchmark results show this does not matter for Cinebench scores. The Atom’s PassMark results, such as 111525 in data compression and 28946 in integer math, show it handles specific light workloads, but these are not compared head-to-head with the EPYC.

For single-threaded tasks, the EPYC 7502 still wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 6203 against the Atom’s 1129, a 449.4% lead. This is despite the Atom’s higher boost clock, indicating the Zen 2 architecture has superior IPC. The Atom’s strengths are not in raw compute but in low-power operation, small physical size (BGA 1264), and the ability to run on DDR5 memory. Its 6 MB L3 cache is sufficient for lightweight embedded controllers but bottlenecks sustained heavy workloads.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous choice for compute-intensive applications. The AMD EPYC 7502 outscores the Intel Atom x7809C by roughly 450% in every Cinebench test. If the workload involves multi-threaded rendering, virtualization, or large-scale data processing, the EPYC 7502 is the only rational pick from these two. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, 128 MB L3 cache, eight-channel memory, and ECC support make it a server-class processor. The 180 W TDP is a cost of doing business for that performance.

The Intel Atom x7809C is not a competitor in this head-to-head; it is a different tool. Its 25 W TDP, single-channel memory, and 9 PCIe lanes target embedded systems, network appliances, or edge devices where power draw and board space trump raw performance. The 67th percentile ranking for both chips is a statistical artifact, the Atom’s average score is buoyed by PassMark tests that show it can handle specific tasks like data compression (111525) and floating-point math (17856) reasonably well for its class. But in Cinebench, the Atom’s 8 cores and 8 threads cannot scale.

Choose the EPYC 7502 for servers, workstations, or any workload that needs sustained multi-threaded compute. Choose the Atom x7809C for low-power embedded designs where the EPYC 7502’s 180 W TDP and Socket SP3 are non-starters. The 2024 release date of the Atom versus the 2019 release date of the EPYC does not close the performance gap. The EPYC 7502 remains a viable server part; the Atom x7809C is a specialized embedded processor. If you need raw compute, the choice is clear. If you need minimal power draw, the choice is equally clear. There is no middle ground in this comparison.