CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-12300 and Intel Atom x7213RE occupy opposite ends of Intel’s modern portfolio, yet both are active products. The Core i3-12300 is a desktop part built on Alder Lake, while the Atom x7213RE is a mobile-oriented chip from the Amston Lake family. Benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the Atom’s remarkably low power envelope and distinct feature set make this comparison more nuanced than a simple scoreboard.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i3-12300 dominates every shared benchmark, with wins in all five head-to-head tests. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Core i3-12300 scores 724 against the Atom’s 132, a 448.5% difference. This is not a marginal lead; it represents a fundamentally different class of single-thread performance, driven by the Core i3’s 4.40 GHz boost clock versus the Atom’s 3.40 GHz, and its Alder Lake architecture.

Multi-core results tell an identical story. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core i3-12300 posts 12,211 points, while the Atom x7213RE manages 2,244. That is a 444.2% advantage for the Core i3. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar 444.4% gap (5,128 vs 942), and R15 multi-core lands at 444.2% (1,230 vs 226). The consistency of these margins, all hovering near 444%, indicates the performance difference scales uniformly across workloads, rather than favoring one chip in specific scenarios.

Single-core results are slightly more lopsided than multi-core. Beyond the R20 single-core result, Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Core i3-12300 at 1,724 points versus the Atom’s 316, a 445.6% gap. The R15 single-core test is not listed in the head-to-head table, but the Core i3’s R15 single-core score of 173 still far exceeds the Atom’s comparable output. The overall pattern is clear: the Core i3-12300 is roughly 4.5x faster in every measured workload.

The Atom x7213RE does have benchmark data the Core i3 lacks, including PassMark tests for data compression, encryption, and extended instructions. Its best PassMark result is data compression at 27,860, followed by integer math at 7,058 and floating-point math at 4,885. However, these scores do not change the head-to-head verdict, as no PassMark comparison exists for the Core i3. The average benchmark score places the Core i3-12300 at 3,532 and the Atom x7213RE at 3,520, a negligible 0.3% difference, but this average is skewed by the different test suites each chip runs.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Core i3-12300 in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core i3-12300 leads by 444.2% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (12,211 vs 2,244) and by 444.4% in R20 multi-core (5,128 vs 942). The R15 multi-core margin is also 444.2% (1,230 vs 226).

Q: Is the Atom x7213RE competitive in single-core performance?

A: No. The Core i3-12300 wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 448.5% (724 vs 132) and R23 single-core by 445.6% (1,724 vs 316). The Atom’s best single-core result is 1,601 in PassMark single-thread, but no comparable Core i3 PassMark score exists.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two chips?

A: The Core i3-12300 has a TDP of 60 watts, while the Atom x7213RE is rated at just 9 watts. That makes the Atom roughly 7x more power-efficient in terms of thermal design, though this comes with the massive performance deficit documented above.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 and DDR5. However, the Core i3-12300 uses dual-channel memory, while the Atom x7213RE is limited to single-channel. The Atom also specifies a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, which the Core i3 does not list in the data.

Q: Which chip has better integrated graphics?

A: The Core i3-12300 features UHD Graphics 730, whereas the Atom x7213RE has UHD Graphics 16EU. The benchmark data does not include graphics tests, so no numerical comparison is possible, but the Core i3’s higher-end IGP designation suggests greater capability.

Q: Are these chips in the same performance percentile?

A: Surprisingly, both are at the 55th percentile versus all CPUs. This is likely because the Atom’s benchmark suite includes PassMark tests that boost its average score, while the Core i3’s scores come solely from Cinebench. The nearest rivals for each chip reflect this: the Atom’s closest match is the Core i3-12300T at -0.1% delta, while the Core i3’s nearest rival is the Xeon W-1290TE at 0% delta.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for performance-focused buyers: the Core i3-12300 is the superior processor in every measured category. Its Cinebench scores are consistently 444-448% higher across single and multi-core tests, making it the obvious choice for desktop workloads that demand raw compute throughput. The chip’s 4 cores and 8 threads, combined with a 4.40 GHz boost clock, deliver results that place it in the same performance class as the Intel Xeon W-1290TE and Core i5-10600K, both of which match its average score of 3,532.

The Atom x7213RE, by contrast, is not a competitor in this arena. Its 2 cores and 2 threads, with a 3.40 GHz boost clock, produce scores that are a fraction of the Core i3’s. However, the Atom’s 9-watt TDP is a defining feature. For applications where power draw is the primary constraint, such as embedded systems, fanless designs, or battery-powered mobile devices, the Atom’s efficiency could outweigh its performance deficit. The data shows it trades roughly 80% of the Core i3’s performance for a 51-watt reduction in TDP.

Choosing between them depends entirely on the use case. Desktop users needing Cinebench-class performance should select the Core i3-12300. Mobile or embedded deployments prioritizing low power over speed should consider the Atom x7213RE. The benchmark results offer no middle ground.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every core specification. The Core i3-12300 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Atom x7213RE has 2 cores and 2 threads. Base clocks are 3.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.40 GHz versus 3.40 GHz. TDP is 60 watts for the Core i3 and 9 watts for the Atom. Sockets differ completely: Intel Socket 1700 for the Core i3, Intel BGA 1264 for the Atom. The Core i3 uses a 163 mm² die, while the Atom does not list a die size. Cache layouts are also distinct, the Core i3 has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3, while the Atom has 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory bus width differs (dual-channel vs single-channel), and PCIe support is Gen 5 with 20 lanes for the Core i3 versus Gen 3 with 9 lanes for the Atom. The Core i3’s launch MSRP is $143; the Atom’s is $42. The Atom has a release date of April 2024, while the Core i3’s release date is not listed. The Core i3’s part number is SRL61; the Atom’s is SRNEP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is generational and philosophical. The Core i3-12300 uses Alder Lake, Intel’s performance-oriented hybrid architecture, with a codename of Alder Lake-S. The Atom x7213RE uses Amston Lake, codenamed Amston Lake, and belongs to the Atom generation built on Gracemont cores. Both are fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process at Intel’s foundry, so the node is identical. The die size is only listed for the Core i3 at 163 mm², suggesting the Atom’s smaller footprint but no direct comparison is possible from the data. The Core i3 has 12 MB of L3 cache versus the Atom’s 6 MB, and the Core i3’s L2 is per-core while the Atom’s L2 is shared. Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics 730 on the Core i3 versus UHD Graphics 16EU on the Atom. Neither chip supports ECC memory, and both are locked (multiplierUnlocked is false for each). The Core i3 is classified as a Desktop part, while the Atom is classified as Mobile, which aligns with their respective sockets and TDPs. The Atom’s memory bandwidth is explicitly listed at 38.4 GB/s, a figure the Core i3 does not provide. The Core i3’s PCIe implementation is newer (Gen 5) and wider (20 lanes), whereas the Atom uses older Gen 3 with 9 lanes. These architectural choices explain the performance gulf: the Core i3 leverages larger caches, more cores, and faster I/O, while the Atom prioritizes minimal power draw and a compact footprint for embedded or low-power mobile roles.