CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data paints an unusually one-sided picture. Across all six Cinebench comparisons, the Intel Atom C5125 defeats the Intel Xeon E-2224G, and it does so with remarkable consistency. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Atom leads by 15.6% (104 vs. 90). The smallest gap is in Cinebench R20 multi-core, still a decisive 14.7% advantage for the Atom (3081 vs. 2687). This uniformity is striking: the deltas cluster tightly between 14.5% and 15.6%, suggesting a systemic performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Atom scores 739 against the Xeon’s 644, a 14.8% win. The R20 single-core test shows the Atom at 434 versus 379, a 14.5% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows the pattern: 7336 for the Atom, 6398 for the Xeon, a 14.7% difference. Even the single-core R23 result, often a strong suit for higher-clocked parts, goes to the Atom by 14.6% (1035 vs. 903). The Atom wins all six head-to-head tests, with zero victories for the Xeon.

What makes this interesting is the underlying hardware. The Xeon E-2224G has a 3.50 GHz base clock and a 4.70 GHz boost, while the Atom C5125 runs at a fixed 2.80 GHz with no boost capability. Despite the Xeon’s 1.9 GHz clock advantage at peak, the Atom’s newer Tremont architecture and 10 nm process overcome that deficit in every measured scenario. The data does not show a single test where raw clock speed translates into a win for the Xeon.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this. The Atom posts an average of 2122, while the Xeon sits at 2117, a 0.2% difference that places them nearly identical in aggregate. Yet the head-to-head deltas are all in the mid-teens. This apparent contradiction resolves when considering the benchmark mix: the Xeon’s Geekbench results (4299 multi-core, 1535 single-core) are not part of the head-to-head set, but they skew its average upward. The Cinebench suite alone tells a consistent story of Atom superiority.

Where Each One Wins

The Atom C5125 wins in every category the head-to-head data covers. That includes multi-threaded rendering tasks like Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core, where its 8 cores and 8 threads outpace the Xeon’s 4 cores and 4 threads. It also wins single-core tests, which is more surprising given the Xeon’s higher clocks. The Atom’s single-core margins (15.6%, 14.5%, 14.6%) are nearly identical to its multi-core margins (14.8%, 14.7%, 14.7%), indicating that per-core efficiency, not core count, is the primary driver.

The Xeon E-2224G has no wins in the provided benchmark data. However, it does offer capabilities the Atom lacks. The Xeon includes integrated HD Graphics P630, while the Atom has N/A for integrated graphics. For workloads that rely on the iGPU, such as basic display output or hardware-accelerated media, the Xeon has a functional advantage, though the data does not quantify it. The Xeon also has a larger L3 cache at 8 MB shared, compared to the Atom’s null L3. This could matter for cache-sensitive workloads, but the Cinebench results do not reflect any such benefit.

The Xeon’s boost clock of 4.70 GHz suggests it should excel in short, single-threaded bursts. Yet the Atom’s 2.80 GHz fixed clock wins all single-core tests. This implies that sustained single-core performance favors the Atom’s architecture, or that the Xeon’s boost is not sustained under the test conditions. The data cannot distinguish between these explanations, but the empirical results are unambiguous.

For use cases, the Atom’s wins position it for Cinebench-style rendering and multi-threaded compute. The Xeon’s strengths, if any, would lie outside the measured benchmarks, possibly in areas like iGPU-based tasks or cache-heavy algorithms that the data does not cover.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Atom C5125 is built on a 10 nm process and uses the Tremont microarchitecture, codenamed Parker Ridge. The Xeon E-2224G is a 14 nm part based on Coffee Lake, specifically the Coffee Lake-S WS die. This process gap, 10 nm versus 14 nm, likely explains much of the Atom’s efficiency advantage, though the data does not directly measure power efficiency.

Core counts differ sharply: the Atom has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither chip supports simultaneous multi-threading, so threads equal cores in both cases. The Atom’s cache layout is unusual: 64 KB of L1 per core and 4.5 MB of L2 per module, with no L3 cache. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. This means the Xeon has a more conventional cache hierarchy, while the Atom relies on larger L2 modules to compensate for the absence of L3.

The memory subsystems are similar but not identical. Both support DDR4 in dual-channel mode, and both support ECC memory. The Atom offers 46.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Xeon offers 42.7 GB/s, a 9.8% advantage for the Atom. Both use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Xeon includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics P630); the Atom has none.

Process node and cache design are the most consequential differences. The 10 nm Tremont cores clearly deliver higher instructions-per-clock than the 14 nm Coffee Lake cores, at least in Cinebench. The Atom’s lack of L3 is notable, yet it still wins cache-sensitive single-core tests, suggesting the L2-per-module design is effective for these workloads.

Specification Differences

The key specification gaps between the two CPUs are stark. The Atom C5125 has 8 cores and 8 threads; the Xeon E-2224G has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks differ: 2.80 GHz for the Atom versus 3.50 GHz for the Xeon. The Xeon has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz; the Atom has no boost capability. Thermal design power (TDP) favors the Atom at 50 watts versus the Xeon’s 71 watts, a 21-watt difference that suggests lower heat output for the Atom, though the data does not measure thermals.

Sockets are incompatible: the Atom uses Intel BGA 2106, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151. The Xeon has a larger die at 126 mm²; the Atom’s die size is not listed. Process nodes differ as noted: 10 nm for the Atom, 14 nm for the Xeon. The Xeon has 8 MB of shared L3; the Atom has no L3 but a larger L2 per module (4.5 MB versus 256 KB per core). Memory bandwidth is higher on the Atom (46.9 GB/s vs. 42.7 GB/s). The Xeon includes integrated graphics; the Atom does not.

Release dates and production statuses also diverge. The Atom launched on June 5, 2022, and remains active in production. The Xeon launched on May 28, 2019, and is end-of-life. The Atom carries a launch MSRP of $335; the Xeon’s launch MSRP is $213. Both are multiplier-unlocked: false. Part numbers are SRL40 for the Atom and SRFAW for the Xeon. The Xeon belongs to the Xeon E-2200 series; the Atom has no series designation.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Atom C5125 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Xeon E-2224G has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The Atom C5125 scores 1035, and the Xeon E-2224G scores 903, giving the Atom a 14.6% advantage.

Q: Does the Xeon E-2224G have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes HD Graphics P630. The Atom C5125 has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: Which chip has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Atom C5125 offers 46.9 GB/s, compared to the Xeon E-2224G’s 42.7 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The Atom C5125 is listed as active, while the Xeon E-2224G is end-of-life.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Atom C5125 has a TDP of 50 watts, while the Xeon E-2224G has a TDP of 71 watts.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice: the Intel Atom C5125 outperforms the Intel Xeon E-2224G in every head-to-head benchmark provided. Across six Cinebench tests, the Atom leads by margins between 14.5% and 15.6%, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads. Its advantages include more cores (8 vs. 4), higher memory bandwidth (46.9 GB/s vs. 42.7 GB/s), a newer 10 nm process, and a lower TDP (50 vs. 71 watts). The Xeon’s higher base clock (3.50 GHz vs. 2.80 GHz) and boost clock (4.70 GHz vs. none) do not translate into any benchmark victory.

The Xeon E-2224G retains two practical advantages: integrated HD Graphics P630 and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. For systems requiring an iGPU or cache-heavy workloads not represented in Cinebench, the Xeon may be worth consideration. Its lower launch MSRP of $213 versus the Atom’s $335 also makes it cheaper at launch, though the Atom’s active production status and the Xeon’s end-of-life status suggest different lifecycle positions.

Who should pick which? The Atom C5125 is the choice for compute-bound tasks measured by Cinebench, offering superior multi-core and single-core scores with lower power draw. The Xeon E-2224G is the choice only if integrated graphics are essential or if the 8 MB L3 cache proves beneficial for specific applications. The benchmark data, however, leaves no doubt about raw performance: the Atom wins six out of six tests.