CPU Comparison

The Intel Atom P5342 and Intel Core i5-1240P occupy opposite ends of Intel’s 10 nm product spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores land within 0.5% of each other. The Atom P5342, a 16-core Snow Ridge server part, posts an average score of 3217, while the 12-core Alder Lake-P mobile chip scores 3202. That near-identical aggregate hides a starkly split workload profile, with the Core i5 dominating most Cinebench tests while the Atom claims the most demanding multi-threaded workload. The data shows two very different processors converging on similar overall performance through entirely different means.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i5-1240P wins five of the six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, and its victories are decisive in the older test versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5 scores 1566.5 against the Atom’s 1121, a 28.4% advantage. The single-core R15 gap is even wider: 226 versus 158, a 30.1% deficit for the Atom. These are the largest deltas in the entire comparison, indicating a fundamental difference in per-thread capability that persists across generations of the benchmark.

The R20 results follow the same pattern but with slightly narrower margins. The i5-1240P posts 5632 in multi-core versus 4671 for the Atom, a 17.1% lead. Single-core R20 shows the identical 17.1% gap, with scores of 795 and 659. The consistency of that percentage across both R20 tests suggests the i5’s advantage scales uniformly whether one core or all cores are active.

The R23 results upend the trend. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Atom P5342 scores 11122 against the i5’s 9392, an 18.4% victory. This is the only test the Atom wins, and it is a substantial one. The R23 single-core test remains with the i5, but barely: 1600 versus 1570, a mere 1.9% margin. That thin single-core edge, combined with the Atom’s large multi-core win, indicates the R23 workload scales better with the Atom’s 16 physical cores than the earlier tests.

The pattern across all six benchmarks is clear: the i5-1240P wins by large margins in R15 and R20, loses by a large margin in R23 multi-core, and barely edges out the Atom in R23 single-core. The average scores nearly cancel out because the i5’s R15 and R20 wins are offset by the Atom’s R23 multi-core performance. Benchmark selection matters enormously for these two parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Atom P5342 has an average benchmark score of 3217, while the Intel Core i5-1240P scores 3202. The Atom leads by 0.5%, a margin that falls within the noise of most testing.

Q: How does the Core i5-1240P compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The i5-1240P’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-13100T, which scores 3198, a 0.1% difference. The Intel Core i7-9700E (3197) and Intel Xeon E-2136 (3193) follow at 0.2% and 0.3% behind, respectively.

Q: What is the single biggest performance gap in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Core i5-1240P scores 226 against the Atom’s 158, a 30.1% advantage for the i5.

Q: Does the Atom P5342 win any benchmark at all?

A: Yes. The Atom P5342 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 11122, beating the i5-1240P’s 9392 by 18.4%.

Q: How close is the R23 single-core result?

A: The i5-1240P scores 1600 and the Atom P5342 scores 1570, a 1.9% difference. This is the narrowest margin of any head-to-head result.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor?

A: Both processors rank at the 53rd percentile among all CPUs tested, meaning they sit at the midpoint of the performance distribution.

Architecture Differences

The Atom P5342 uses the Snow Ridge codename with a Tremont core generation, while the Core i5-1240P is built on Alder Lake architecture with the Alder Lake-P codename. Both are fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process, but the design philosophies diverge sharply. The Atom is a 16-core, 16-thread part with no hyper-threading, emphasizing physical core count for server workloads. The i5-1240P has 12 cores and 16 threads, relying on a hybrid architecture that combines performance and efficiency cores to balance speed and power.

Cache organization differs fundamentally between the two. The Atom P5342 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 4.5 MB of L2 cache per module, with no L3 cache listed. The i5-1240P offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Atom’s per-module L2 design suits its many-core, low-clock strategy, while the i5’s larger L3 pool helps feed its higher-frequency cores.

The memory subsystem also diverges. The Atom supports only DDR4 with dual-channel configuration and a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, plus ECC memory support. The i5-1240P supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with dual-channel configuration but lists no memory bandwidth figure and does not support ECC. The Atom’s ECC capability reflects its server/workstation positioning, while the i5’s broader memory compatibility targets mobile versatility.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The Atom provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i5 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The i5’s newer PCIe generation and additional lanes give it a connectivity advantage for GPUs and NVMe storage. The Atom also lacks integrated graphics entirely, with a listed integrated graphics of "N/A," while the i5 includes Iris Xe 80EU graphics.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious differentiators: the Atom P5342 has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the i5-1240P has 12 cores and 16 threads. The Atom’s base clock is 2.20 GHz with no boost clock listed, whereas the i5-1240P lists a base clock of 1700.00 MHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The i5’s boost capability is critical to its single-core dominance, while the Atom’s fixed clock relies on core count for throughput.

Thermal design power differs substantially: the Atom P5342 is rated at 71W, while the i5-1240P is rated at 28W. That 43W gap explains the i5’s mobile suitability and the Atom’s server orientation, though the Atom still manages higher multi-core scores in R23 despite the higher power draw. Socket compatibility also differs: the Atom uses Intel BGA 2106, while the i5 uses Intel BGA 1744, making them physically incompatible.

Die size and cache allocation differ. The i5-1240P has a die size of 217 mm², while the Atom lists no die size. The i5’s L1 cache is 80 KB per core versus the Atom’s 64 KB per core. The i5’s L2 is 1.25 MB per core versus the Atom’s 4.5 MB per module, and the i5 adds 12 MB shared L3 where the Atom has none. The i5 also supports DDR5 in addition to DDR4, while the Atom is DDR4-only.

Release timing and market segment separate the two. The Atom P5342 launched on June 5, 2022, with a launch MSRP of $708. The i5-1240P launched earlier, on February 22, 2022, with no launch MSRP listed. The Atom targets the server/workstation segment, while the i5 is a mobile part. Both are currently active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Atom P5342 wins in sustained multi-threaded workloads that scale beyond 12 cores. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11122 demonstrates that its 16 physical cores can outperform the i5’s 16 threads when the workload is properly parallelized. The 18.4% margin in that test is the Atom’s strongest statement, suggesting that heavily threaded server tasks, data processing, or rendering workloads that resemble R23’s scaling behavior would favor the Atom. Its ECC memory support and server/workstation market segment further reinforce this use case, as does its DDR4 support with a listed 42.7 GB/s bandwidth.

The Core i5-1240P wins in nearly every other scenario. Its single-core performance is superior across all three Cinebench versions, with margins ranging from 1.9% in R23 to 30.1% in R15. The R20 multi-core result also goes to the i5 by 17.1%, indicating that workloads with moderate thread scaling favor the hybrid architecture. The i5’s 4.40 GHz boost clock, 12 MB shared L3 cache, and Iris Xe 80EU integrated graphics make it a more complete package for general-purpose mobile computing. Its 28W TDP is less than half the Atom’s 71W, making it the clear choice for power-constrained environments. The i5 also supports DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, future-proofing connectivity in ways the Atom cannot match.

For users weighing these two, the decision hinges on workload shape. The Atom wins where core count trumps clock speed, particularly in long-running, highly parallel server tasks. The i5 wins where single-thread responsiveness, moderate multi-threading, and power efficiency matter, which covers most desktop and mobile applications. The i5 also wins on integrated graphics capability, as the Atom has none.

The Verdict

The data presents a clean split: the Intel Core i5-1240P is the better all-around processor, winning five of six benchmarks and delivering decisive advantages in single-core performance and power efficiency. Its 30.1% lead in R15 single-core and 17.1% leads in both R20 tests demonstrate a clear per-thread superiority that the Atom cannot counter outside of heavily threaded R23 workloads. The i5’s 28W TDP, integrated Iris Xe graphics, and DDR5 support make it the pragmatic choice for mobile systems and general-purpose computing.

The Intel Atom P5342 is the specialist. It wins the only benchmark that stresses all 16 cores equally, posting an 18.4% advantage in R23 multi-core. Its 71W TDP, ECC memory support, and server/workstation market segment indicate a part designed for reliability and throughput in data-center-adjacent roles, not for interactive responsiveness. The 53rd percentile ranking for both parts confirms they sit in the middle of the CPU performance distribution, but they arrive there via opposite strategies.

Users should select the Atom P5342 if their workloads resemble R23 multi-core: large, parallel, and sustained, where the 16 physical cores can stretch their lead. Users should select the Core i5-1240P for everything else. The i5’s single-core wins are too large and too consistent to ignore, and its R20 multi-core victory shows it can handle moderate threading without sacrificing responsiveness. The average scores are nearly identical, but the underlying benchmark distribution makes the choice straightforward based on workload characteristics.