CPU Comparison

# Intel Atom C5315 vs Intel Core i3-1000NG4

The Intel Atom C5315 and Intel Core i3-1000NG4 occupy opposite ends of Intel’s 10 nm lineup, one a server-focused Tremont part, the other a mobile Ice Lake-Y design. Despite the Atom’s server pedigree and higher core count, the benchmark data consistently favors the Core i3 across every tested workload, with the Core i3 winning all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, 871 for the Atom versus 881 for the Core i3, but the distribution of wins reveals a clear performance hierarchy.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 wins all five head-to-head benchmarks against the Intel Atom C5315, including Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core i3 leads by 15.3% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. The Atom scores 255, 1063, and 2533 respectively, while the Core i3 scores 301, 1255, and 2989.

Q: Does the Atom’s 4-core setup beat the Core i3’s 2-core configuration in multi-threaded tests?

A: No. Despite having twice as many physical cores (4 vs 2), the Atom C5315 trails the Core i3-1000NG4 in every multi-core benchmark. The Core i3’s 4 threads, combined with its higher boost clock, compensate for the core deficit.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The Core i3 leads by 15.8% in Cinebench R20 single-core (177 vs 149) and by 15.4% in Cinebench R23 single-core (422 vs 357). This consistent margin suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Atom C5315 sits within 0.7% of the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B, Intel Core i7-3540M, Intel Xeon X3460, and Intel Core i3-5157U. The Core i3-1000NG4 matches the AMD Phenom II X6 1035T and AMD Athlon Silver 7120U exactly, with a 0.1% spread against the Intel Core i7-930 and AMD PRO A12-8870E.

Q: What is the production status and release timeline for each?

A: The Atom C5315 is listed as Active and was released on June 5, 2022. The Core i3-1000NG4 is End-of-life and was released on March 17, 2020. The Atom remains in production while the Core i3 has been discontinued.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 10 nm manufacturing process and Intel as the foundry, but the architectural divergence is substantial. The Atom C5315 uses the Tremont microarchitecture under the Parker Ridge codename, while the Core i3-1000NG4 employs the Sunny Cove architecture within the Ice Lake-Y platform. Tremont is designed for low-power server and edge workloads, whereas Sunny Cove targets mobile efficiency with higher per-clock performance.

Core configuration differs dramatically. The Atom packs 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Core i3 offers only 2 cores but 4 threads via Hyper-Threading. The Atom’s base clock is 2.40 GHz with no boost clock listed, whereas the Core i3 has a 1.10 GHz base clock but boosts to 3.20 GHz. That 3.20 GHz boost capability is likely the key driver behind the Core i3’s benchmark superiority, as it can ramp up significantly under load.

Cache hierarchies reflect their different design philosophies. The Atom provides 64 KB L1 per core and 4.5 MB L2 per module, with no L3 cache specified. The Core i3 offers 80 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The Core i3’s dedicated L3 cache provides a shared pool for both cores, while the Atom’s modular L2 design may not offer the same responsiveness for latency-sensitive workloads.

Memory support shows another split. Both support DDR4 and dual-channel memory, but the Atom reports a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s and includes ECC memory support, a server-grade feature. The Core i3 does not list memory bandwidth and lacks ECC support. The Atom also specifies PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU-only lanes, while the Core i3 simply lists PCIe Gen 3 without lane details. The Atom’s die size is not disclosed, but the Core i3 measures 123 mm². Integrated graphics differ completely: the Atom has none, while the Core i3 includes Iris Plus with 48 execution units.

The socket situation separates them physically: the Atom uses Intel BGA 2106, and the Core i3 uses Intel BGA 1044. The Atom’s market segment is Server/Workstation, while the Core i3 targets Mobile. Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous, the Core i3-1000NG4 wins every single comparison. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i3 scores 301 against the Atom’s 255, a 15.3% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Core i3’s 1255 beats the Atom’s 1063 by the same 15.3% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the Core i3 at 2989 versus 2533 for the Atom, again 15.3% ahead.

Single-core results tell a nearly identical story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Core i3 scores 177 versus 149 for the Atom, a 15.8% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core sees the Core i3 at 422 versus 357, a 15.4% margin. The consistency of these deltas, hovering around 15.3% to 15.8% across all five tests, suggests a uniform performance advantage that scales across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

The Atom’s 4 cores do not translate into a multi-core win. This is worth examining closely: the Atom’s 2.40 GHz base clock across 4 cores should theoretically provide more aggregate throughput, but the Core i3’s 3.20 GHz boost clock appears to dominate in Cinebench’s workload profile. The Core i3’s Sunny Cove architecture likely delivers higher instructions per clock (IPC) than Tremont, compounding the clock speed advantage.

For context on where these chips sit, the Atom’s average benchmark score of 871 places it within 0.1% of the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B (872) and within 0.5% of the Intel Core i7-3540M (867) and Intel Xeon X3460 (866). The Core i3’s average of 881 matches the AMD Phenom II X6 1035T and AMD Athlon Silver 7120U exactly, while sitting 0.1% above the AMD PRO A12-8870E. Both processors land at the 23rd percentile among all CPUs, indicating they occupy similar tiers in the overall performance distribution despite the Core i3’s head-to-head dominance.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for general computational work: the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 outperforms the Intel Atom C5315 in every benchmark tested. The Core i3’s 15.3% multi-core and 15.4-15.8% single-core advantages are consistent and reproducible across three Cinebench versions. For anyone choosing between these two based on raw performance, the Core i3 is the objectively faster processor.

However, the choice is not purely about speed. The Atom C5315 offers ECC memory support, a feature absent from the Core i3, and is listed as Active production status with a launch MSRP of $213. The Core i3 is End-of-life, which may affect long-term availability. The Atom’s server/workstation positioning brings reliability features that the mobile-oriented Core i3 lacks, even if those features do not show up in Cinebench scores.

The Core i3’s integrated Iris Plus graphics (48EU) provide functionality the Atom cannot offer, making it the more versatile option for systems requiring display output without a discrete GPU. The Atom’s lack of integrated graphics means it requires external hardware for any visual output, limiting its applicability in compact systems. The Core i3’s 123 mm² die size also suggests a more complex design with additional functional blocks beyond the compute cores.

For a server or workstation environment where ECC memory and continuous production availability matter, the Atom C5315 holds appeal. For mobile or compact systems where performance and integrated graphics are priorities, the Core i3-1000NG4 is the data-supported choice. The Atom’s 4 cores may scale better in specific multi-threaded server workloads not captured by Cinebench, but within the available benchmark suite, it consistently loses.

Specification Differences

The specifications diverge on nearly every measurable field. The Atom C5315 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Core i3-1000NG4 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks differ: 2.40 GHz for the Atom versus 1.10 GHz for the Core i3. The Core i3 adds a 3.20 GHz boost clock, while the Atom lists none. Thermal design power varies widely, 38 watts for the Atom versus 9 watts for the Core i3, indicating the Atom consumes over four times the power budget.

Socket compatibility separates them: Intel BGA 2106 for the Atom and Intel BGA 1044 for the Core i3. The Atom uses the Tremont architecture under the Parker Ridge codename, while the Core i3 uses Sunny Cove on Ice Lake-Y. Cache configurations differ: the Atom has 64 KB L1 per core and 4.5 MB L2 per module with no L3, while the Core i3 has 80 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3.

Memory bandwidth and ECC support favor the Atom: it lists 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC capability, while the Core i3 lists neither. PCIe configurations also differ, with the Atom specifying Gen 3 with 8 CPU-only lanes versus the Core i3’s generic Gen 3 listing. Integrated graphics are exclusive to the Core i3 (Iris Plus 48EU). The Atom has no die size listed, while the Core i3 measures 123 mm².

Release dates and production statuses differ significantly: the Atom launched June 5, 2022, and remains Active; the Core i3 launched March 17, 2020, and is End-of-life. The Atom carries a launch MSRP of $213, while the Core i3 has no listed launch MSRP. Market segments split them into Server/Workstation versus Mobile. Part numbers distinguish them as SRL3Y (Atom) and SRGM9 (Core i3). Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i3-1000NG4 wins in every benchmark category available: all multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23) and all single-core tests (R20, R23). Its closest margins are 15.3% in multi-core and 15.4-15.8% in single-core. The Core i3 also wins on integrated graphics, offering Iris Plus with 48EU where the Atom has no graphics solution at all. For any workload captured by Cinebench, rendering, simulation, or general compute, the Core i3 is the stronger performer.

The Atom C5315 wins on server-oriented features. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for error-sensitive workloads in servers and workstations. Its 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth is explicitly listed, whereas the Core i3’s bandwidth is unspecified. The Atom’s 38-watt TDP, while higher than the Core i3’s 9 watts, is still modest for a server part and reflects its positioning for dense, low-power server deployments. Its Active production status and 2022 release date mean it is currently available for new designs, unlike the End-of-life Core i3.

The Atom’s 4-core configuration could theoretically benefit workloads that scale across physical cores without relying on high boost clocks, but the benchmark data does not support this advantage in Cinebench. The Core i3’s 4 threads, combined with its 3.20 GHz boost, consistently outperform the Atom’s 4 physical cores at 2.40 GHz. The average benchmark scores, 871 for the Atom, 881 for the Core i3, reflect this narrow but consistent gap, with both CPUs landing at the 23rd percentile overall.

For compact, power-constrained mobile systems, the Core i3’s 9-watt TDP and integrated graphics make it the obvious choice. For server racks where ECC memory and production availability are non-negotiable, the Atom C5315 provides those features despite its benchmark deficit. The data suggests a trade-off: raw performance and graphics capability on the Core i3 side, versus reliability features and ongoing availability on the Atom side.