CPU Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X and Intel Atom x7809C occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet both post nearly identical aggregate benchmark scores. The Threadripper 3990X, a 64-core desktop monster from AMD’s Castle Peak line, averages 12,786 points across its benchmark suite, while the Atom x7809C, a low-power mobile chip from Intel’s Amston Lake family, averages 12,607 points. This places them within 0.1% of each other in overall performance, a statistical tie that hides radically different strengths. The 3990X holds a 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Atom sits at the 67th percentile, confirming that these processors achieve comparable average results through entirely different means. The data reveals a fascinating split: the Threadripper dominates every shared multi-threaded workload, while the Atom’s efficiency and specialized instruction handling allow it to match the overall average.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous in their direction: AMD wins all six shared tests, with margins that consistently exceed 750%. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 3990X scores 6,866 against the Atom’s 805, a delta of 752.9%. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story, with 969 versus 113, a 757.5% advantage for the Threadripper. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore gap remains at 752.1%, with scores of 28,612 and 3,358. The single-core R20 result is equally lopsided: 4,039 versus 474, another 752.1% delta. In Cinebench R23, the most demanding render test, the Threadripper scores 68,124 in multicore against the Atom’s 7,997, a 751.9% lead. The R23 single-core test closes the list with 9,617 versus 1,129, a 751.8% margin.

These deltas are remarkably consistent, hovering near 752% across all six tests. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is driven by fundamental architectural advantages rather than workload-specific optimizations. The 3990X’s 64 cores and 128 threads overwhelm the Atom’s 8 cores and 8 threads in every scenario, but the consistency of the margin, even in single-core tests, points to a massive per-thread performance disparity as well. The Atom’s Gracemont cores, designed for efficiency, simply cannot match the Zen 2 cores in raw throughput. Notably, the Atom has no wins to claim; zero tests favor Intel. The benchmark data shows a complete sweep for AMD, though the aggregate scores tell a different story about overall value.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper 3990X wins every benchmark that both processors share, but the Atom x7809C’s strengths emerge in tests not included in the head-to-head comparison. The Atom’s PassMark results reveal specialized capabilities: it scores 111,525 in data compression, 28,946 in integer math, and 17,856 in floating point math. These are strong numbers for a 25-watt chip, suggesting efficient execution of specific instruction patterns. The Atom also manages 15,728 in random string sorting and 9,409 in multithreaded PassMark tests, indicating respectable parallel throughput for its core count.

The 3990X’s wins are more straightforward. Its Cinebench scores scale linearly with its massive thread count, making it ideal for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any heavily parallel compute workload. The Geekbench multicore score of 20,912 further confirms its dominance in general-purpose multithreaded tasks. However, the Atom’s PassMark data encryption score of 7,832 and extended instructions score of 5,509 suggest it handles cryptographic and SIMD-heavy workloads with surprising competence for its size. The data implies that the Atom’s win condition is efficiency per watt and specific instruction throughput, not absolute performance. For workloads that fit within its 8 threads, the Atom can deliver results that belie its low power envelope, though the 3990X will always finish faster given enough parallel work.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two processors explains their divergent benchmark profiles. The 3990X uses AMD’s Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Castle Peak, built on a 7 nm TSMC process with 30,400 million transistors spread across eight 74 mm² chiplets. It features 64 cores and 128 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of L3 cache. The Atom x7809C, by contrast, uses Intel’s Gracemont cores in the Amston Lake architecture, fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, with 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per module, and only 6 MB of shared L3.

The cache hierarchy alone tells a story: the Threadripper’s 256 MB L3 is 42 times larger than the Atom’s 6 MB, a difference that affects data-heavy workloads dramatically. The 3990X also supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Atom is single-channel with 38.4 GB/s. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Threadripper offers Gen 4 with 64 lanes, while the Atom provides Gen 3 with just 9 lanes. The Atom does support both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, a flexibility the 3990X lacks with its DDR4-only design. Process node differences are significant: 7 nm versus 10 nm, though the Atom compensates with a 25-watt TDP versus the 280-watt TDP of the Threadripper. The 3990X has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking; the Atom does not. These architectural choices define their respective markets: raw compute versus embedded efficiency.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict: choose the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X for any workload that scales with thread count, and choose the Intel Atom x7809C for power-sensitive, low-footprint applications. The 3990X delivers 752.9% more performance in Cinebench R15 multicore and 751.9% more in R23 multicore, making it the obvious choice for rendering, scientific computing, and heavy multitasking. Its 128 threads and 256 MB L3 cache provide a level of parallel capability the Atom cannot approach. However, the Atom’s 25-watt TDP versus 280 watts for the Threadripper means the Intel chip operates at a fraction of the power draw, making it suitable for fanless designs, edge devices, or battery-powered systems where thermal constraints dominate.

The aggregate benchmark scores, 12,786 versus 12,607, suggest these CPUs perform similarly on average, but this is misleading. The average is dragged down by the Threadripper’s relatively weak single-core scores in isolation and the Atom’s inability to compete in multicore tests. The 3990X’s percentile ranking of 68 versus the Atom’s 67 confirms they sit in the same overall performance tier, but the distribution of that performance is entirely different. The Threadripper wins every shared benchmark by a factor of 8.5, while the Atom wins on efficiency and specialized instruction throughput. For a desktop workstation, the 3990X is the only rational choice. For an ultra-low-power appliance, the Atom is the only viable option. The data does not support a middle ground.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every measurable specification. Core count: 64 versus 8. Threads: 128 versus 8. Base clock: 2.90 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. Boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 3.60 GHz. TDP: 280 watts versus 25 watts. Socket: AMD Socket TRX4 versus Intel BGA 1264. Architecture: Zen 2 versus Amston Lake (Gracemont). Process node: 7 nm versus 10 nm. L1 cache: 64 KB per core versus 96 KB per core. L2 cache: 512 KB per core versus 2 MB per module. L3 cache: 256 MB versus 6 MB shared. Memory support: DDR4 only versus DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bus: quad-channel versus single-channel. Memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 4 with 64 lanes versus Gen 3 with 9 lanes. Integrated graphics: none versus N/A. Market segment: desktop versus mobile. Release date: February 2020 versus April 2024. The 3990X has an unlocked multiplier; the Atom does not. The 3990X’s launch MSRP is $3990, while the Atom’s is $117.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X is dramatically faster, winning the Cinebench R20 multicore test with 28,612 points versus the Atom’s 3,358, a 752.1% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Atom x7809C win any shared benchmark?

A: No. In the six head-to-head benchmarks, the Threadripper 3990X wins all of them, with deltas ranging from 751.8% to 757.5%.

Q: How do their aggregate benchmark scores compare?

A: The 3990X averages 12,786 points, while the Atom averages 12,607 points, a difference of roughly 0.1%. The 3990X ranks in the 68th percentile, the Atom in the 67th.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The 3990X supports DDR4 only, while the Atom x7809C supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The 3990X uses quad-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth; the Atom uses single-channel with 38.4 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Threadripper 3990X has a 280-watt TDP, while the Atom x7809C has a 25-watt TDP, a factor of 11.2 difference in favor of the Atom.

Q: Which has more cache?

A: The 3990X has 256 MB of L3 cache, compared to the Atom’s 6 MB. The Atom has larger per-core L1 (96 KB vs 64 KB) and larger L2 per module (2 MB vs 512 KB per core).