CPU Comparison

The Intel Atom x7809C and AMD EPYC 9174F occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 12607 for the Atom and 12536 for the EPYC. This statistical tie, however, masks a dramatic divergence in workload characteristics. The Atom x7809C, a 25W mobile processor, wins none of the six shared head-to-head benchmarks, while the 320W server-class EPYC 9174F dominates every single one. The data suggests that the average score is a misleading metric here; these chips are not competitors in any practical sense, but rather solutions for entirely different problems. The EPYC 9174F is the unequivocal performance king, while the Atom x7809C’s role is defined by its power envelope and platform, not by raw throughput.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9174F wins every head-to-head test by a commanding margin, with deltas ranging from -82.8% to -82.9% in the Atom’s favor, meaning the EPYC’s scores are roughly 5.8 times higher across Cinebench tests. For any workload where raw compute performance is the primary metric, the EPYC 9174F is the only choice from this pairing. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with a 4.10 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost clock, deliver results that the Atom cannot approach. The Intel Atom x7809C, conversely, should be selected by designers prioritizing extreme power efficiency, as its 25W TDP is a fraction of the EPYC’s 320W, and its compact BGA 1264 socket targets mobile or embedded applications where the EPYC’s SP5 platform is physically and thermally impossible. The data shows the Atom’s 67th percentile ranking is equal to the EPYC’s, but this parity is a statistical artifact of averaging diverse workloads; in reality, there is no overlap in their intended use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9174F wins in every category represented by the shared benchmarks. Its largest victory is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 46489 against the Atom’s 7997, a -82.8% delta. This indicates a massive advantage in multi-threaded rendering and computational tasks. The EPYC also leads in single-core performance, achieving 6563 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1129 for the Atom, showing that even single-threaded workloads are significantly faster on the server chip. The EPYC’s other wins include Cinebench R15 and R20 in both multi-core and single-core variants, with deltas consistently around -82.8%. The Intel Atom x7809C has no benchmark wins in this head-to-head set. Its strengths are not captured in these compute-heavy tests; the data shows it has a 25W TDP, single-channel memory, and Gen 3 PCIe lanes, indicating its wins would be in power-constrained, low-throughput environments where the EPYC cannot operate at all.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Atom x7809C uses the Amston Lake architecture with Gracemont cores, fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process. It is a mobile part with 8 cores and 8 threads, a 2.00 GHz base clock, and a 3.60 GHz boost. Its cache hierarchy includes 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per module, and 6 MB shared L3. The AMD EPYC 9174F is a Zen 4 (Genoa) server chip built on TSMC’s 5 nm process, with 16 cores and 32 threads. It runs at a much higher 4.10 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost clock. The EPYC’s cache is vastly larger: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB shared L3. The EPYC also has 52,560 million transistors spread across 8x 72 mm² dies, while the Atom’s transistor count and die size are not listed. The memory systems diverge sharply: the Atom supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a single-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC supports only DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC also features ECC memory support, Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes, and a server socket (SP5), whereas the Atom lacks ECC and uses Gen 3 with 9 lanes on a mobile BGA socket.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Atom x7809C has an average benchmark score of 12607, which is slightly higher than the AMD EPYC 9174F’s 12536. The delta between them is 0.6% in the Atom’s favor, according to the nearestRivals data.

Q: How does the EPYC 9174F compare to the Atom x7809C in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 9174F scores 46489 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Atom x7809C scores 7997. This results in a -82.8% delta for the Atom, meaning the EPYC is approximately 5.8 times faster in this test.

Q: Is the Atom x7809C a viable alternative for server workloads?

A: The data shows the Atom x7809C falls behind the EPYC 9174F by 82.8% or more in all Cinebench tests. Additionally, the Atom has a 25W TDP, single-channel memory, and no ECC support, while the EPYC has a 320W TDP, twelve-channel memory, and ECC support, indicating they are not interchangeable for server tasks.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences between the two?

A: The Intel Atom x7809C has a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s with a single-channel bus, supporting DDR4 and DDR5. The AMD EPYC 9174F has a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s with a twelve-channel bus, supporting only DDR5, which is a 12x difference in theoretical bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors have the same market segment?

A: No. The Intel Atom x7809C is listed as a Mobile processor, while the AMD EPYC 9174F is listed as a Server/Workstation processor. This aligns with their sockets: Intel BGA 1264 for the Atom and AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, while the Intel Atom x7809C has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The EPYC also has a higher base clock at 4.10 GHz versus 2.00 GHz for the Atom.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 9174F, with six wins out of six tests. The smallest margin of victory is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC scores 661 against the Atom’s 113, a -82.9% delta. This near-identical delta across all tests suggests a consistent performance gap rather than a workload-specific advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 4686 versus 805, a -82.8% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC’s multi-core score is 19525 compared to the Atom’s 3358, and its single-core score is 2756 versus 474, both with -82.8% deltas. The largest absolute gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC’s 46489 dwarfs the Atom’s 7997. The single-core R23 test shows 6563 for the EPYC and 1129 for the Atom. The consistency of the -82.8% to -82.9% deltas across all six tests indicates that the EPYC’s advantage is proportional and not dependent on the specific Cinebench version or workload type. The data does not include any PassMark or Geekbench results in the head-to-head set, though the EPYC has separate Geekbench scores of 17363 (multi-core) and 2244 (single-core), while the Atom has extensive PassMark scores including 9409 for multithread and 1462 for single-thread.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal stark contrasts in every major category. The AMD EPYC 9174F has 16 cores and 32 threads, double the Atom’s 8 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC’s base and boost clocks are 4.10 GHz and 4.40 GHz, respectively, compared to the Atom’s 2.00 GHz and 3.60 GHz. The TDP difference is extreme: 320W for the EPYC versus 25W for the Atom. The process nodes differ, with the EPYC on 5 nm from TSMC and the Atom on 10 nm from Intel. The EPYC’s cache includes 256 MB shared L3, while the Atom has 6 MB shared L3; the L1 and L2 caches also differ in size per core or module. Memory support is limited to DDR5 for the EPYC with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Atom supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a single-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s. The EPYC supports ECC memory, the Atom does not. PCIe capabilities are Gen 5 with 128 lanes for the EPYC and Gen 3 with 9 lanes for the Atom. The sockets are AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC and Intel BGA 1264 for the Atom. The EPYC has a listed transistor count of 52,560 million and a die size of 8x 72 mm², while the Atom has no transistor or die size data. The EPYC’s launch MSRP is $3850, while the Atom’s is $117. The EPYC’s market segment is Server/Workstation, while the Atom’s is Mobile. Finally, the EPYC’s architecture is Zen 4 (Genoa) from the EPYC 9004 series, while the Atom’s is Amston Lake with Gracemont cores.