AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX vs Intel Atom x7835RE Comparison

The Intel Atom x7835RE and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX sit at opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet both occupy the 65th percentile among all CPUs tracked in this database. The Atom is a 12-watt mobile part built for efficiency, while the Threadripper PRO is a 280-watt workstation monster. The benchmark data shows a complete sweep for AMD, but the story is more nuanced than raw scores alone. This analysis walks through the head-to-head results, answers common questions, and identifies where each processor makes sense based strictly on the measured performance and specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX wins all six shared benchmark tests, and it does so by remarkably consistent margins. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Threadripper scores 3447 against the Atom’s 609, a delta of -82.3% from the Atom’s perspective. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: 486 for AMD versus 85 for Intel, again a -82.5% difference. These are not close contests; the Threadripper delivers roughly 5.7 times the multicore performance and 5.7 times the single-core performance in this older Cinebench version.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds exactly. Multicore scores are 14365 for the Threadripper and 2541 for the Atom, a -82.3% delta. Single-core R20 shows 2027 versus 358, also -82.3%. The consistency of these deltas across R15 and R20 suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific. The AMD part scales its advantage uniformly across both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering tasks.

Cinebench R23, the most demanding of the three versions, reinforces the trend. The Threadripper’s multicore score of 34204 dwarfs the Atom’s 6051, and single-core is 4828 versus 854. Both deltas sit at -82.3%. This uniformity is striking — regardless of whether the workload uses one core or all cores, the AMD processor maintains the same proportional lead. The data implies the Atom’s Gracemont cores, while efficient, simply cannot match the per-thread throughput of Zen 3 under sustained rendering load.

The average benchmark scores place these chips nearly equal in the database overall: the Atom averages 9430 while the Threadripper averages 9348. This is a -0.9% delta for AMD when using the Atom as the reference, meaning the Threadripper actually scores slightly lower on average across all recorded benchmarks. This happens because the Atom has 17 benchmark entries (including PassMark tests like data compression at 76736 and floating point math at 16236), while the Threadripper only has 8 entries, all from Cinebench and Geekbench. The Threadripper’s Geekbench multicore score of 13371 and single-core of 2059 are strong, but the average is pulled down by having fewer high-scoring entries relative to the Atom’s broader test portfolio.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Threadripper in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Threadripper scores 34204 versus the Atom’s 6051, which is an 82.3% lead over the Atom. The same -82.3% delta appears in R15 multicore (3447 vs 609) and R20 multicore (14365 vs 2541).

Q: Does the Atom win any benchmark against the Threadripper?

A: No. Across the six shared head-to-head tests, the Threadripper wins all six. However, the Atom’s overall average benchmark score of 9430 is slightly higher than the Threadripper’s 9348, a 0.9% difference, because the Atom has more benchmark entries in the database.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two processors?

A: The Intel Atom x7835RE has a TDP of 12 watts, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX has a TDP of 280 watts. This is a 268-watt gap, reflecting the Threadripper’s workstation-class power envelope versus the Atom’s ultra-mobile design.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX supports ECC memory, while the Intel Atom x7835RE does not. The Threadripper also uses eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, versus the Atom’s single-channel 38.4 GB/s.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Threadripper has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Atom has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Threadripper also has a higher base clock (4.10 GHz vs 1.30 GHz) and boost clock (4.50 GHz vs 3.60 GHz).

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both are listed as Active in production status. The Atom was released in April 2024, while the Threadripper was released in March 2022.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 5945WX wins every compute-intensive benchmark where the two overlap. For rendering workloads, the Cinebench scores are decisive: R23 multicore at 34204 vs 6051, R20 at 14365 vs 2541, and R15 at 3447 vs 609. Single-core rendering also favors AMD, with R23 single at 4828 vs 854. This makes the Threadripper the clear choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific simulation, or any task that scales with thread count and per-core performance. Its 12 cores with 24 threads, combined with 64 MB of L3 cache, provide a massive parallel processing advantage.

The Atom x7835RE, despite losing all head-to-head tests, still has a role. Its PassMark scores show strengths in specific integer and encryption workloads. For example, PassMark data compression scores 76736, and integer math scores 26623. These are not compared against the Threadripper directly, but they indicate the Atom can handle data processing tasks. The Atom’s 12-watt TDP means it can run in fanless or passively cooled systems, making it suitable for industrial controllers, edge gateways, or embedded applications where power draw and heat are critical constraints. Its integrated UHD Graphics 32EU also provides display output without a discrete GPU, which is useful for compact systems.

For workloads that are not in the shared benchmark set, the Atom’s broader test portfolio suggests it handles integer math, floating point math, and encryption tasks with reasonable efficiency for its power class. The Threadripper, however, has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU for display, which adds to system complexity and power consumption.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Atom has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Threadripper has 12 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds are starkly different: the Atom runs at 1.30 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, whereas the Threadripper runs at 4.10 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost. TDP is the most dramatic split: 12 watts for Intel versus 280 watts for AMD.

Memory support diverges completely. The Atom supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The Threadripper supports only DDR4, but over an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Atom offers Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes, while the Threadripper offers Gen 4 with 128 CPU lanes.

The launch MSRP for the Atom is $127, which is the only price data available. The Threadripper has no launch MSRP listed. The Atom uses an Intel BGA 1264 socket, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket WRX8. The Atom is classified as Mobile market segment, and the Threadripper is Server/Workstation.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is fundamental. The Atom uses Intel’s Amston Lake architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel’s foundry. Its codename is Amston Lake, and it belongs to the Atom (Gracemont) generation. The cache layout is unusual: 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per module, and 6 MB shared L3. This is designed for low-power efficiency, with a single-channel memory controller and integrated UHD Graphics 32EU.

The Threadripper uses AMD’s Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Chagall PRO, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It has 16,600 million transistors across a 4x 81 mm² die configuration, indicating a chiplet design. Cache is 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a large 64 MB L3 cache. This is a server/workstation design with eight-channel memory and no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU.

The process node difference (10 nm Intel vs 7 nm TSMC) and the core architecture (Gracemont efficiency cores vs Zen 3 high-performance cores) explain the performance and power gaps. The Atom’s Gracemont cores prioritize energy efficiency, while Zen 3 prioritizes raw throughput. The Threadripper’s massive L3 cache and 24 threads allow it to sustain high multi-threaded performance, while the Atom’s smaller cache and single-channel memory limit its bandwidth.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX outperforms the Intel Atom x7835RE in every shared test, with consistent 82.3% margins across all Cinebench versions. Anyone needing maximum rendering performance, high core counts, or ECC memory should choose the Threadripper. Its 12 cores, 24 threads, and 64 MB L3 cache are built for serious workstation workloads, and its eight-channel memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s supports data-heavy applications.

The Intel Atom x7835RE is the choice for scenarios where power consumption is paramount. Its 12-watt TDP, single-channel memory, and integrated graphics make it suitable for embedded systems, industrial automation, or portable devices where the Threadripper’s 280-watt TDP would be impossible to cool or power. The Atom’s lower clock speeds and fewer threads mean it cannot compete on raw performance, but its efficiency profile is unmatched in this comparison.

The data also reveals an interesting quirk: the Atom has a higher average benchmark score (9430 vs 9348) despite losing all head-to-head tests. This is because the Atom’s benchmark portfolio includes PassMark tests that the Threadripper does not have, such as data compression (76736) and integer math (26623). This does not change the verdict for shared workloads, but it highlights that the Atom has strengths in specific data-processing tasks that are not captured in the Cinebench comparison.

In summary, pick the Threadripper for performance-critical workstation tasks, and pick the Atom for power-constrained embedded or mobile applications. The 268-watt TDP difference is the deciding factor for most real-world deployments.