CPU Comparison

The Intel Atom P5342 and Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 represent two very different interpretations of the server CPU, separated by six years and a fundamental shift in design philosophy. The Atom P5342 is a modern, power-efficient Snow Ridge part built on a 10 nm process, while the Xeon E5-1660 v4 is a legacy Broadwell-EP workhorse on 14 nm. Despite the Atom’s newer process and double the core count, the benchmark data shows a remarkably consistent, if narrow, victory for the older Xeon across every single test in the comparison. The results are not about overwhelming force, but about the nuances of single-thread efficiency versus raw core scaling.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E5-1660 v4 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, but the margins are uniformly slim. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1137 against the Atom’s 1121, a delta of -1.4%. The single-core test in R15 shows a similar pattern, with the Xeon at 160 and the Atom at 158, a -1.2% difference. This is a pattern that repeats with striking consistency across every generation of the Cinebench benchmark.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon’s lead is nearly identical in percentage terms. In the multi-core test, the Xeon scores 4739 versus the Atom’s 4671, again a -1.4% gap. The single-core result shows the Xeon at 669 and the Atom at 659, a -1.5% delta. The consistency of these margins suggests a fundamental performance ceiling difference between the two architectures rather than a workload-specific advantage.

The latest benchmark in the set, Cinebench R23, continues the trend. The Xeon’s multi-core score of 11285 edges out the Atom’s 11122 by -1.4%, while the single-core result of 1593 for the Xeon beats the Atom’s 1570 by the same -1.4% margin. The data is clear: the Xeon E5-1660 v4 is consistently about 1.4% faster than the Atom P5342 in every workload tested, regardless of thread count or benchmark version.

What makes this result notable is the core count disparity. The Atom P5342 has 16 cores, exactly double the Xeon’s 8 cores. Yet, the Xeon still manages to outpace it in multi-threaded tests. This indicates that the Xeon’s older, higher-clocked Broadwell cores are far more efficient per-core than the Atom’s Tremont cores. The Xeon’s base clock of 3.20 GHz and boost clock of 3.80 GHz dwarf the Atom’s fixed 2.20 GHz, and this clock advantage more than compensates for the Atom’s additional physical cores.

The average benchmark scores reflect this overall parity. The Atom P5342 has an average benchmark score of 3217, placing it at the 53rd percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon E5-1660 v4 scores slightly higher with an average of 3264, also at the 53rd percentile. This puts the two processors in the same performance tier overall, despite their architectural differences. The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 and AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516, while the Atom’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5350GE and Intel Core i5-1240P, indicating they compete against similar performance-level parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 leads in Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 1593, compared to the Intel Atom P5342’s score of 1570. This represents a -1.4% delta in favor of the Xeon.

Q: Does the Atom P5342’s higher core count give it an advantage in multi-threaded workloads?

A: No. Despite having 16 cores versus the Xeon’s 8 cores, the Atom P5342 loses in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The Xeon scores 11285, while the Atom scores 11122, a -1.4% difference favoring the Xeon.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of overall average benchmark score?

A: The Xeon E5-1660 v4 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 3264, while the Atom P5342 has an average score of 3217. Both processors sit at the 53rd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R15 multi-core?

A: The Xeon E5-1660 v4 wins with a score of 1137, while the Atom P5342 scores 1121. The delta is -1.4%, meaning the Xeon is roughly 1.4% faster in this test.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Xeon E5-1660 v4 has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the Atom P5342 has no boost clock and operates at a fixed base clock of 2.20 GHz.

Q: Are there any Cinebench tests where the Atom P5342 outperforms the Xeon E5-1660 v4?

A: According to the head-to-head benchmark data, the Atom P5342 does not win any of the six tests. The Xeon E5-1660 v4 wins all six, with the Atom trailing by margins between -1.2% and -1.5%.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear, if counterintuitive, verdict. The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 is the faster processor in every measurable category within this comparison. It wins all six Cinebench tests, from R15 to R23, in both single-core and multi-core configurations. The margins are consistent, hovering around -1.4% across the board, which indicates a fundamental per-core performance advantage for the Xeon that its lower core count cannot erode.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in Cinebench workloads, the Xeon E5-1660 v4 is the statistically superior choice. Its higher clock speeds, both base and boost, allow it to overcome the Atom P5342’s 2x core advantage. The Xeon’s 3.20 GHz base clock and 3.80 GHz boost clock are significantly higher than the Atom’s 2.20 GHz fixed clock, and this translates directly into benchmark victories.

However, the story is not entirely one-sided. The Atom P5342 is the more modern design, built on a 10 nm process versus the Xeon’s 14 nm. It also has a dramatically lower TDP of 71 watts, compared to the Xeon’s 140 watts. For a system builder targeting a specific power envelope, the Atom’s efficiency could be a deciding factor, even if it sacrifices a small amount of performance. The Atom also has a lower launch MSRP of $708, versus the Xeon’s launch MSRP of $1113.

The choice ultimately depends on the workload priority. For maximum Cinebench scores, the Xeon E5-1660 v4 wins outright. For a more modern, power-efficient platform with a lower entry cost, the Atom P5342 offers a compelling alternative, albeit one that is consistently about 1.4% slower. The data does not support a scenario where the Atom is the faster part; it is simply the more efficient one.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Atom P5342 has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon E5-1660 v4 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Atom operates at a base clock of 2.20 GHz with no boost clock, while the Xeon has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz.

The TDP ratings are vastly different, with the Atom at 71 watts and the Xeon at 140 watts. They use different sockets: the Atom uses Intel BGA 2106, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The memory configurations also differ, with the Atom supporting dual-channel memory and the Xeon supporting quad-channel memory. This results in a significant memory bandwidth difference, with the Atom at 42.7 GB/s and the Xeon at 76.8 GB/s.

PCIe lane counts also differ substantially. The Atom supports 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the Xeon supports 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The market segments are different, with the Atom classified as Server/Workstation and the Xeon as Desktop. The production status also differs, with the Atom listed as Active and the Xeon as End-of-life. The release dates are separated by several years, with the Atom launching in 2022 and the Xeon in 2016.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two CPUs is stark. The Atom P5342 is based on the Snow Ridge platform, using the Atom (Tremont) generation of cores. The Xeon E5-1660 v4 is built on the Broadwell-EP architecture, specifically the Broadwell generation. The manufacturing processes differ, with the Atom on a 10 nm node and the Xeon on a 14 nm node, both produced by Intel.

The cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Atom has a per-core L1 cache of 64 KB and a per-module L2 cache of 4.5 MB, with no L3 cache listed. The Xeon has a per-core L1 cache of 64 KB, a per-core L2 cache of 256 KB, and a shared 20 MB L3 cache. This larger, shared L3 cache on the Xeon is a significant architectural advantage for workloads with data reuse across cores.

The Xeon also has a much larger physical footprint, with 3,400 million transistors on a 246 mm² die. The Atom’s transistor count and die size are not listed in the data. Both processors support DDR4 memory and ECC memory, but the Xeon’s quad-channel bus provides nearly double the memory bandwidth of the Atom’s dual-channel bus. The Xeon’s 40 PCIe lanes also provide more expansion capability than the Atom’s 16 lanes. These architectural differences explain why the older, larger Xeon can match and exceed the newer, more efficient Atom in benchmark performance.