Intel Atom C5315 vs Intel Xeon X5492 Comparison

Intel Atom C5315 and Intel Xeon X5492 are both 4-core, 4-thread server processors from Intel, but they come from very different eras and design philosophies. The database shows the Atom C5315 winning all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, though by narrow margins. The Xeon X5492 runs at a much higher base clock, but the Atom draws on a newer process node and architectural efficiency. This comparison walks through the recorded measurements to clarify where each part fits.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives a clear, if narrow, sweep to the Intel Atom C5315. In every recorded Cinebench test, the Atom C5315 scores higher than the Xeon X5492. The largest advantage appears in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the Atom scores 255 against the Xeon’s 249, a 2.4% lead. The other four tests show similar margins: 2.3% in R20 multicore, 2.1% in R20 singlecore, 2.3% in R23 multicore, and 2.3% in R23 singlecore.

The Xeon X5492 wins no head-to-head tests in the database. Its average benchmark score is 852, compared to the Atom C5315’s 871. That difference, about 2.2%, aligns with the per-test deltas. Both processors sit at the 23rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same performance tier relative to the broader market.

Where the Xeon X5492 does stand out is in clock speed. Its base clock is 3.40 GHz, versus 2.40 GHz for the Atom C5315. That 1.00 GHz gap does not translate into higher Cinebench scores, which indicates the Atom’s architectural efficiency per clock is meaningfully better. For workloads dominated by single-threaded responsiveness, the Atom still edges out the Xeon, so even the Xeon’s clock advantage cannot overcome the newer design.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Atom C5315 belongs to the Parker Ridge codename, part of the Atom (Tremont) generation. It is built on a 10 nm process node, fabricated by Intel. The Xeon X5492, codenamed Harpertown, uses the Core 2 architecture and a 45 nm process. That process gap is substantial: 10 nm versus 45 nm means the Atom packs transistors far more densely, which contributes to its lower power draw and higher efficiency.

The Xeon X5492 does report transistor and die details: 820 million transistors across a dual-die design, with each die measuring 107 mm². The Atom C5315 has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database. The Xeon’s core count matches the Atom at 4 cores and 4 threads, but the cache layout differs. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core. The Atom lists 4.5 MB of L2 cache per module, while the Xeon lists 6 MB of L2 cache per die. Neither processor has an L3 cache.

Memory support also diverges. The Atom C5315 supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Xeon X5492 supports DDR2 and DDR3, also dual-channel, but the database lists no memory bandwidth figure for it. Both support ECC memory, which suits their server/workstation market segment.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Atom C5315 has PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon X5492 has PCIe Gen 2, with no lane count specified. The integrated graphics field is listed as N/A for the Atom and null for the Xeon, so neither part carries onboard graphics.

Production status separates the two further. The Atom C5315 is marked Active, while the Xeon X5492 is End-of-life. Release dates confirm the gap: the Xeon launched in September 2008, the Atom in June 2022. The Atom’s launch MSRP is $213; the Xeon’s launch MSRP is $1493. Both parts have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results show a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Atom C5315 scores 255 against the Xeon X5492’s 249. That is a 2.4% win for the Atom. The R20 multicore test gives the Atom 1063 versus 1039, a 2.3% margin. Single-core R20 shows 149 versus 146, a 2.1% lead. R23 multicore records 2533 for the Atom and 2475 for the Xeon, again 2.3%. R23 single-core has the Atom at 357 and the Xeon at 349, a 2.3% edge.

Every margin sits between 2.1% and 2.4%. The consistency suggests the Atom’s advantage is structural rather than workload-specific. The Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.40 GHz does not help it catch up in any Cinebench variant. The Atom’s 10 nm process and Tremont architecture appear to deliver enough instructions per clock to overcome a 1.00 GHz deficit.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this. The Atom C5315 averages 871, while the Xeon X5492 averages 852. The nearest rivals for the Atom include the AMD Athlon PRO 3045B at 872 (a -0.1% delta), the Intel Core i7-3540M at 867 (a 0.5% delta), the Intel Xeon X3460 at 866 (a 0.5% delta), and the Intel Core i3-5157U at 877 (a -0.7% delta). For the Xeon, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i5-5250U at 856 (-0.4%), the AMD Athlon X4 830 at 848 (0.4%), the Intel Core i5-2500T at 856 (-0.5%), and the Intel Core i7-4500U at 859 (-0.8%). Both processors sit within a few points of their nearest competitors, confirming they belong to the same performance stratum.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded fields. The base clock is the most obvious: 2.40 GHz for the Atom C5315, 3.40 GHz for the Xeon X5492. Neither has a boost clock. The TDP separates them sharply: 38 watts for the Atom, 150 watts for the Xeon. That nearly 4x difference in power draw is a major differentiator for dense or power-sensitive deployments.

The socket also differs. The Atom uses Intel BGA 2106, a soldered design. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 771, a traditional LGA socket. The process node is 10 nm for the Atom and 45 nm for the Xeon. The Xeon reports 820 million transistors and a die size of 2x 107 mm², while the Atom has no such figures recorded.

Cache configuration varies. Both have 64 KB L1 per core. The Atom lists 4.5 MB L2 per module; the Xeon lists 6 MB L2 per die. Neither has L3. Memory support: the Atom takes DDR4, the Xeon takes DDR2 and DDR3. Both are dual-channel. The Atom has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s; the Xeon has none. ECC support is present on both.

PCIe generations differ: Gen 3 with 8 lanes for the Atom, Gen 2 for the Xeon. Integrated graphics are absent from both. The Atom is marked Active and released in June 2022; the Xeon is End-of-life and released in September 2008. Launch MSRP: $213 for the Atom, $1493 for the Xeon. Both have locked multipliers. Part numbers are SRL3Y for the Atom and SLBBD for the Xeon.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock?

A: The Intel Xeon X5492 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz, compared to 2.40 GHz for the Intel Atom C5315.

Q: Does the higher clock speed result in better Cinebench performance?

A: No. The Atom C5315 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 2.1% to 2.4%, despite the Xeon’s 1.00 GHz clock advantage.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Atom C5315 has a TDP of 38 watts, while the Xeon X5492 has a TDP of 150 watts. The Xeon draws nearly four times as much power.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Intel Atom C5315 supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon X5492 supports DDR2 and DDR3, also dual-channel, but with no recorded bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The Atom C5315 is marked Active, while the Xeon X5492 is marked End-of-life.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Atom C5315 averages 871, and the Xeon X5492 averages 852. The Atom is about 2.2% higher, consistent with the individual Cinebench deltas.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Atom C5315 as the better performer in Cinebench workloads, despite the Xeon X5492’s much higher clock speed and larger L2 cache. The Atom wins every recorded test, with margins between 2.1% and 2.4%. Its 10 nm process and Tremont architecture deliver higher efficiency per clock, which more than compensates for the 1.00 GHz base clock deficit.

For new deployments, the Atom C5315 is the practical choice. It is Active in production, uses a modern socket (BGA 2106), supports DDR4 with a recorded 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and draws only 38 watts. The Xeon X5492, by contrast, is End-of-life, uses Socket 771, supports older DDR2 and DDR3 memory, and consumes 150 watts. The Atom’s launch MSRP of $213 is far below the Xeon’s launch MSRP of $1493, though the database does not evaluate cost effectiveness.

The Xeon X5492 does retain one niche: it offers a higher base clock of 3.40 GHz and a larger L2 cache of 6 MB per die. For legacy systems already built around Socket 771, it may be the only drop-in option. But for any new server or workstation build, the recorded benchmarks show the Atom C5315 matching or slightly exceeding the Xeon in every Cinebench test while using a fraction of the power. The 23rd percentile ranking for both processors indicates they are entry-level parts by modern standards, but between the two, the Atom is the one with forward-looking support and a clear, if narrow, performance edge. Users with power constraints or modern memory requirements should favor the Atom, while those maintaining older infrastructure may still find the Xeon serviceable.