Intel Atom C5125 vs Intel Core i7-1185GRE Comparison

The Intel Core i7-1185GRE and Intel Atom C5125 occupy different corners of the Intel lineup: the former is a 15-watt mobile processor with integrated graphics, the latter a 50-watt server/workstation part with eight cores. In the database's head-to-head Cinebench results, the Atom wins every test, but the i7 counters with a higher average benchmark score and a feature set aimed at portability. This analysis walks through the recorded measurements, specification differences, and the use cases where each part has a clear edge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Across the six recorded Cinebench tests, the Atom C5125 is the winner in every case. The margins are consistent: in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Atom scores 739 against the i7's 668, a 9.6% lead. The single-core R15 test shows 104 versus 94, also a 9.6% lead. R20 multi-core: 3081 vs 2786, again 9.6%. R20 single-core: 434 vs 393, a slightly smaller 9.4% lead. R23 multi-core: 7336 vs 6635, 9.6%. R23 single-core: 1035 vs 936, 9.6%. The consistency of the margin suggests a systematic performance advantage for the Atom in Cinebench workloads, likely tied to its higher base clock (2.80 GHz vs 1.80 GHz) and its eight physical cores, though the i7's four cores with hyper-threading still produce eight threads. The i7 does have a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, but the Atom has no boost clock at all, so its 2.80 GHz base is the only speed. Despite that, the Atom's single-core scores are higher, which indicates that the Tremont cores in the Atom are competitive on a per-thread basis in these tests.

Looking at the broader database, the i7-1185GRE's average benchmark score is 2178, placing it 0.2% above the AMD Ryzen 5 3400GE and the Intel Core i5-1145G7E, 0.5% above the Intel Core i5-7640X, and 1% above the Intel Core i7-5950HQ. The Atom C5125's average is 2122, which is 0.1% below the Intel Core i7-1160G7, 0.2% below the AMD Ryzen 5 7520C, 0.2% above the Intel Xeon E-2224G, and 0.6% above the Intel Core i5-8500T. So while the Atom wins the Cinebench head-to-head, the i7 holds a higher overall average score, partly because the i7 also has Geekbench results (4060 multi-core, 1848 single-core) that are not available for the Atom.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher multi-core Cinebench score?

A: The Atom C5125, with 739, 3081, and 7336 in R15, R20, and R23 respectively, versus the i7's 668, 2786, and 6635. The Atom leads by 9.6% in each.

Q: Does the i7-1185GRE have any benchmark advantage?

A: The i7 has a higher average benchmark score (2178 vs 2122) and a higher percentile (47 vs 46). It also has Geekbench scores (4060 multi, 1848 single) that the Atom lacks, so direct comparison is limited to Cinebench.

Q: What about single-core performance?

A: The Atom wins all single-core Cinebench tests: 104 vs 94 in R15, 434 vs 393 in R20, and 1035 vs 936 in R23, with leads of 9.6% or 9.4%.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: The i7-1185GRE includes Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 96EU, while the Atom C5125 has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: What are the power and core differences?

A: The i7 has 4 cores and 8 threads with a 15W TDP, while the Atom has 8 cores and 8 threads with a 50W TDP. The i7 has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, the Atom has no boost clock and a base of 2.80 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmarks, the Atom C5125 wins every Cinebench test, making it the stronger choice for CPU-bound multi-threaded workloads such as rendering, encoding, or server-side processing. Its eight physical cores and higher base clock (2.80 GHz) contribute to this result. The Atom also offers more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) and a higher memory bandwidth (46.9 GB/s, a figure not listed for the i7), which can benefit data-intensive tasks. Its market segment is server/workstation, and it supports ECC memory, as does the i7.

The i7-1185GRE, on the other hand, wins in scenarios that require integrated graphics, low power consumption, or a compact mobile form factor. Its 15W TDP is much lower than the Atom's 50W, and it includes Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 96EU, which the Atom lacks. The i7 also has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, allowing it to reach higher single-thread speeds when needed, even though its base clock is lower. It supports LPDDR4X memory in addition to DDR4, and its PCIe Gen4 interface, while narrower (4 lanes), offers newer signaling. The i7's Geekbench scores (4060 multi, 1848 single) provide additional performance data, though no Atom Geekbench results exist for comparison.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 4 (i7) vs 8 (Atom)
• Threads: 8 (i7) vs 8 (Atom)
• Base clock: 1.80 GHz (i7) vs 2.80 GHz (Atom)
• Boost clock: 4.40 GHz (i7) vs none (Atom)
• TDP: 15W (i7) vs 50W (Atom)
• Socket: Intel BGA 1449 (i7) vs Intel BGA 2106 (Atom)
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core (i7) vs 64 KB per core (Atom)
• L2 cache: 1.25 MB per core (i7) vs 4.5 MB per module (Atom)
• L3 cache: 12 MB shared (i7) vs none (Atom)
• Memory support: DDR4, LPDDR4X (i7) vs DDR4 (Atom)
• Memory bandwidth: not listed (i7) vs 46.9 GB/s (Atom)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 4 lanes (i7) vs Gen 3, 16 lanes (Atom)
• Integrated graphics: Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 96EU (i7) vs N/A (Atom)
• Market segment: Mobile (i7) vs Server/Workstation (Atom)
• Release date: 2020-09-01 (i7) vs 2022-06-05 (Atom)
• Launch MSRP: $490 (i7) vs $335 (Atom)
• Part number: SRK0Y (i7) vs SRL40 (Atom)
• Die size: 144 mm² (i7) vs not listed (Atom)
• Process node: 10 nm for both

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same 10 nm process node, but their microarchitectures differ significantly. The i7-1185GRE uses Tiger Lake-U with Willow Cove cores, while the Atom C5125 uses Parker Ridge with Tremont cores. The i7 has 4 cores and 8 threads, indicating hyper-threading, whereas the Atom has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning no simultaneous multi-threading. The cache hierarchy also diverges: the i7 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, plus a 12 MB shared L3. The Atom has 64 KB of L1 per core and 4.5 MB of L2 per module, with no L3 cache. This difference in cache structure likely affects performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

Other architectural differences include the memory controller: the i7 supports both DDR4 and LPDDR4X, while the Atom supports only DDR4. The i7's PCIe interface is Gen 4 with 4 lanes, while the Atom uses Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The i7 includes an integrated GPU (Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 96EU), while the Atom has no integrated graphics. The i7 has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, while the Atom has no boost capability, relying solely on its 2.80 GHz base. The i7's die size is 144 mm², while the Atom's die size is not recorded. Both support ECC memory, a feature often required in server and workstation environments.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the Atom C5125 is the clear winner in Cinebench performance, taking all six head-to-head tests with a consistent 9.6% lead (9.4% in R20 single-core). For users whose primary workload is multi-threaded rendering or server-side processing, the Atom's eight cores, higher base clock, and larger PCIe lane count make it the stronger choice. Its 50W TDP and server/workstation market segment reflect that it is designed for always-on, compute-heavy roles.

The i7-1185GRE, despite losing every Cinebench comparison, offers a different set of advantages. Its 15W TDP, integrated graphics, and support for LPDDR4X make it suitable for mobile and embedded systems where power efficiency and display output are important. It also has a higher average benchmark score (2178 vs 2122) and a higher percentile (47 vs 46), and it provides Geekbench results that the Atom does not. The i7's boost clock of 4.40 GHz can deliver higher single-thread performance when needed, even though its base clock is lower.

Ultimately, the choice depends on the use case. If the workload is CPU-bound and power is not a constraint, the Atom C5125 is the better performer in the measured Cinebench tests. If the system requires integrated graphics, low power, or a mobile form factor, the i7-1185GRE is the appropriate part, despite its lower Cinebench scores. The database shows no Cinebench test where the i7 wins, but its other features and higher average score keep it competitive in its own segment.