CPU Comparison
Intel Atom x7211RE
Xeon E5-4627 v3
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Atom x7211RE vs Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3
The Intel Atom x7211RE and the Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 represent two extremes of Intel’s catalog: a modern, ultra-low-power mobile chip against a legacy, high-core-count server processor. The benchmark data shows a complete rout in raw performance for the Xeon, but the Atom’s architectural advantages and efficiency metrics tell a different story for specific workloads.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Xeon E5-4627 v3 dominates every shared benchmark, and the margins are staggering. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 9642 against the Atom’s 1804, a delta of -81.3% for the Atom. This pattern repeats across all five head-to-head tests. The Xeon wins Cinebench R20 multi-core with 4049 versus 757 (-81.3%), and Cinebench R15 multi-core with 971 versus 181 (-81.4%).
Single-core performance is equally one-sided. The Xeon posts 1361 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Atom manages just 254, an -81.3% difference. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon’s 571 dwarfs the Atom’s 106 (-81.4%). The Xeon wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, leaving the Atom with zero wins.
Interestingly, both processors sit at the 51st percentile vs. all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 2811 for the Atom and 2789 for the Xeon. This is a statistical anomaly explained by the different benchmark suites available for each. The Atom has 16 PassMark results, while the Xeon only has 6 Cinebench results. The Atom’s PassMark data, including strong scores in data compression (20820) and integer math (6517), pulls its average up, while the Xeon’s average is based solely on Cinebench multithreaded and single-threaded tests.
The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-5930K (delta 0.5%) and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G (delta 0.5%), placing it in the same performance tier as those desktop chips. The Atom’s rivals include the Intel Core i5-8600K (delta 0.2%) and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5450U (delta -0.6%), showing that despite its low core count, its average score is competitive with mainstream desktop parts.
Architecture Differences
The architectural gap is generational. The Atom x7211RE uses the Amston Lake architecture built on Intel’s 10 nm process with Gracemont efficiency cores. It packs 2 cores and 2 threads, with a base clock of 1.00 GHz boosting to 3.20 GHz. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm process, featuring 10 cores and 20 threads with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and the same 3.20 GHz boost.
Cache configurations highlight different design philosophies. The Atom allocates 96 KB of L1 per core and shares 2 MB of L2, plus 6 MB of shared L3. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 25 MB of shared L3. The Xeon also has a much larger physical footprint: 356 mm² die size with 2,600 million transistors, versus the Atom’s unspecified die size.
Memory support diverges sharply. The Atom supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a single-channel configuration with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. The Xeon supports only DDR4 but in quad-channel mode, delivering 68.3 GB/s bandwidth with ECC support. This makes the Xeon far superior for memory-intensive server workloads.
PCIe capabilities also differ. The Atom offers Gen 3 with 9 lanes, while the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes. The Atom includes integrated UHD Graphics 16EU; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. Power envelopes are radically different: the Atom’s TDP is 6 watts, the Xeon’s is 135 watts. Production status tells the story: the Atom is active, the Xeon is end-of-life.
Where Each One Wins
The Xeon E5-4627 v3 wins every multi-threaded and single-threaded benchmark where both processors have data. Its 10-core, 20-thread configuration with 25 MB of L3 cache makes it the clear choice for heavy compute, rendering, and server workloads. The quad-channel DDR4 memory with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support further positions it for enterprise tasks requiring data integrity.
The Atom x7211RE wins in scenarios not captured by the head-to-head Cinebench tests. Its PassMark results show strengths in specific tasks: data compression at 20820, integer math at 6517, and floating point math at 4303. These scores, combined with its 6-watt TDP, make it suitable for embedded, mobile, or low-power applications where sustained throughput matters less than energy efficiency.
The Atom’s single-thread PassMark score of 1317 is notably higher than its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 254 would suggest. This discrepancy indicates the Atom handles certain instruction-level workloads better than others. Its support for DDR5 memory, even in single-channel, gives it a modern memory advantage, though the bandwidth is far lower than the Xeon’s.
For passive cooling, fanless designs, or battery-powered devices, the Atom’s 6-watt TDP is transformative. The Xeon’s 135-watt TDP requires substantial cooling infrastructure. The Atom also has integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic display scenarios.
FAQ
Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?
A: The Xeon E5-4627 v3 is dramatically faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 9642 versus the Atom’s 1804, an 81.3% advantage. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20 (4049 vs 757) and R15 (971 vs 181).
Q: Does the Atom x7211RE have any performance advantage?
A: In the shared head-to-head benchmarks, no, the Xeon wins all five tests. However, the Atom’s PassMark results show strong scores in data compression (20820) and integer math (6517), and its average benchmark score (2811) is actually slightly higher than the Xeon’s (2789).
Q: What are the memory capabilities of each chip?
A: The Atom supports DDR4 and DDR5 in single-channel mode with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. The Xeon supports only DDR4 but in quad-channel mode with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support.
Q: Which processor is more power-efficient?
A: The Atom x7211RE has a 6-watt TDP, while the Xeon E5-4627 v3 has a 135-watt TDP. This makes the Atom suitable for fanless or battery-powered designs, while the Xeon requires robust cooling.
Q: Is the Xeon E5-4627 v3 still in production?
A: No, the Xeon E5-4627 v3 is end-of-life. The Atom x7211RE is active and currently in production.
Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?
A: The Atom’s average score (2811) is within 0.7% of the Intel Core i5-11300H and 0.2% of the Intel Core i5-8600K. The Xeon’s average (2789) is within 0.5% of the Intel Core i7-5930K and 0.6% of the Intel Core i5-8600K.
The Verdict
The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 is the superior performer in every shared test. Its 10 cores and 20 threads deliver 81.3-81.4% higher scores across all Cinebench benchmarks. For any workload that leverages multi-core processing, rendering, simulation, server-side computation, the Xeon is the only choice between these two.
The Atom x7211RE should not be dismissed. Its 6-watt TDP, integrated UHD Graphics, and support for DDR5 memory make it a compelling option for embedded systems, industrial PCs, or portable devices. Its PassMark data shows capable performance in data compression and integer operations, and its average benchmark score is statistically tied with the Xeon’s.
The decision hinges on use case. If the requirement is raw compute power, ECC memory support, and quad-channel bandwidth, the Xeon E5-4627 v3 wins without contest. If the requirement is minimal power draw, modern architecture, and integrated graphics in a mobile or embedded form factor, the Atom x7211RE is the appropriate pick. The Xeon’s end-of-life status and 135-watt TDP are significant drawbacks for new designs, while the Atom’s active production status and 6-watt TDP favor longevity and efficiency. The data shows two processors optimized for entirely different worlds, and the correct choice depends entirely on which world the user inhabits.