Intel Atom x7213RE vs Intel Xeon E-2186G Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two processors, with the Intel Xeon E-2186G dominating every head-to-head test in the database. The Atom x7213RE does not win a single comparison among the five shared benchmarks, all of which are Cinebench workloads. That is not to say the Atom has no role, but its strengths lie outside the metrics where the two overlap.

The Xeon E-2186G wins decisively in every measured category. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 1158 against the Atom's 226, a delta of -80.5% from the Atom's perspective. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multi-core (4826 vs 942), Cinebench R23 multi-core (11492 vs 2244), and even in single-core tests where the Xeon's higher clock speed gives it an edge: Cinebench R20 single-core shows 681 vs 132, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1622 vs 316. Each of those five comparisons shows a delta of approximately -80.5%, meaning the Atom trails by the same proportion across the board.

The Atom x7213RE does have its own benchmark footprint in the database, just not one that overlaps with the Xeon. Its Passmark results include a data compression score of 27860, which is its strongest single result, and a data encryption score of 1871. It also posts 7058 in integer math, 4885 in floating point math, and 3306 in random string sorting. Those numbers are not directly comparable to the Xeon, because the database does not list matching Passmark tests for the E-2186G. Still, the Atom's average benchmark score of 3520 places it at the 55th percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon's average of 3462 sits at the 54th percentile. That near-identical percentile ranking is worth noting: the Atom's overall average is actually slightly higher, driven by its Passmark results, even though it loses every head-to-head Cinebench test.

The practical reading is that the Xeon E-2186G is the clear choice for any workload that shows up in Cinebench, which typically means CPU-heavy rendering, simulation, or other multi-threaded compute tasks. The Atom's Wins column in the head-to-head table is zero, so there is no benchmark evidence in this database where it beats the Xeon. Where the Atom could be considered is in scenarios that match its Passmark strengths, particularly data compression, where its 27860 score reflects a specialized capability. But the database does not provide a direct Xeon comparison for that test, so that advantage is inferred rather than measured.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion for most buyers: the Xeon E-2186G is faster in every shared benchmark, and by a very wide margin. Its Cinebench scores are roughly five times higher than the Atom's across the board, with deltas consistently around -80.5% from the Atom's side. If the workload is any kind of CPU-bound multi-threaded task, the Xeon is the only defensible pick from these two.

That said, the Atom x7213RE is not without a constituency. Its 9 watt TDP against the Xeon's 95 watts makes it a fundamentally different class of part, even though the database does not list a direct power efficiency metric. The Atom also carries a launch MSRP of $42, which is worth noting once as a reference point. The Xeon's launch MSRP is $506. Those two numbers are far apart, but the benchmark gap is also far apart, so the choice depends on whether the workload needs the Xeon's performance at all.

The database's percentile rankings complicate a simple "buy the Xeon" message. The Atom sits at the 55th percentile of all CPUs, the Xeon at the 54th, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical (3520 vs 3462). That is because the Atom's Passmark results are strong enough to lift its average, while the Xeon's average is pulled down by the absence of those same Passmark tests. So if someone is comparing overall CPU capability as measured by the database's aggregate score, the two are effectively peers. But if someone is comparing them on the tests where both have results, the Xeon wins every time.

The verdict, strictly from the data: pick the Xeon E-2186G for any compute workload that resembles Cinebench, which includes rendering, video encoding, and other multi-core tasks. Pick the Atom x7213RE only if the workload matches its Passmark strengths and the dramatically lower power draw is a priority. The Xeon is end-of-life, the Atom is active, but production status does not change the benchmark results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The five shared tests are all Cinebench variants, and the Xeon E-2186G wins all five with nearly identical deltas. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1158 against the Atom's 226, a delta of -80.5%. That is the same delta seen in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon posts 4826 and the Atom posts 942. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows the pattern: 11492 vs 2244, again -80.5%. The consistency of that delta across three different Cinebench versions suggests the performance gap is structural, not workload-specific.

Single-core results tell the same story. Cinebench R20 single-core shows the Xeon at 681 and the Atom at 132, a delta of -80.6%. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1622 vs 316, a delta of -80.5%. The fact that the single-core delta matches the multi-core delta is informative: the Xeon's advantage is not just about having more cores, it also has a substantial per-thread speed advantage. The Xeon's base clock is 3.80 GHz and boost is 4.70 GHz, while the Atom runs at 2.00 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. Those clocks are not directly compared in the head-to-head table, but they are consistent with the measured single-core gap.

The largest raw margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon leads by 9248 points. Even the smallest margin, Cinebench R20 single-core, still shows the Xeon ahead by 549 points. The Xeon's multi-core scores are around five times the Atom's, which aligns with its 6 cores and 12 threads versus the Atom's 2 cores and 2 threads. The Xeon also has 12 MB of shared L3 cache against the Atom's 6 MB, and a dual-channel memory bus versus single-channel, all of which contribute to the measured results.

There is no benchmark in the shared set where the Atom comes close. The smallest percentage gap is -80.5%, which is still a dominant margin. The database records zero wins for the Atom in the head-to-head table, so there is no counter-example to point to. Anyone choosing the Atom for compute work is making that choice despite the benchmark evidence, not because of it.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins the most benchmarks in the database?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2186G wins all five head-to-head tests, all of which are Cinebench variants. The Atom x7213RE has zero wins in the shared benchmark set.

Q: How much faster is the Xeon in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon leads by approximately 80.5% in every multi-core Cinebench test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 11492 against the Atom's 2244, a margin of 9248 points.

Q: Is the Atom competitive in single-core tests?

A: No. The Xeon wins single-core by a similar margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1622 for the Xeon and 316 for the Atom, a delta of -80.5%.

Q: Do the average benchmark scores change the picture?

A: The Atom's average benchmark score is 3520, and the Xeon's is 3462. The Atom sits at the 55th percentile of all CPUs, the Xeon at the 54th. But those averages include different test sets, so they do not override the head-to-head results.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values?

A: The Atom x7213RE has a launch MSRP of $42. The Xeon E-2186G has a launch MSRP of $506.

Q: Which CPU has better memory support?

A: The Xeon supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The Atom supports both DDR4 and DDR5, but only with a single-channel bus and a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and are built on different process nodes. The Atom x7213RE uses the Amston Lake architecture, also codenamed Amston Lake, and is manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. Its generation is listed as Atom (Gracemont), which reflects its low-power, efficiency-oriented design. The Xeon E-2186G uses the Coffee Lake architecture, codenamed Coffee Lake-S WS, on a 14 nm process, and belongs to the Xeon E-2100 series under the generation Xeon E (Coffee Lake).

The Atom's cache layout is notably different. It has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's per-core L2 is larger, and its L3 is double the Atom's, which helps explain its multi-threaded performance advantage.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Atom supports DDR4 and DDR5, but only on a single-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. It does not support ECC memory. The Xeon supports only DDR4, but on a dual-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, and it does support ECC memory. That ECC support is typical for a server or workstation part and is a meaningful differentiator for reliability-sensitive workloads.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Atom includes UHD Graphics with 16 execution units, while the Xeon includes HD Graphics P630. Neither is a gaming GPU, but the Xeon's graphics are positioned for workstation use. The Atom's market segment is listed as Mobile, while the Xeon is listed as Server/Workstation. That classification matches their respective power envelopes and intended use cases.

PCIe support is another point of difference. The Atom provides PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes, while the Xeon provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The Xeon's additional lanes support more expansion cards or storage devices, which is relevant for workstation builds.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is core count. The Atom x7213RE has 2 cores and 2 threads, while the Xeon E-2186G has 6 cores and 12 threads. That is a 4-core and 10-thread difference, which directly drives the multi-core benchmark results.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Atom runs at a 2.00 GHz base clock and a 3.40 GHz boost clock. The Xeon runs at a 3.80 GHz base clock and a 4.70 GHz boost clock. The Xeon's base clock alone is higher than the Atom's boost clock, which explains the single-core benchmark gap.

Power consumption is a major differentiator, though the database lists it as TDP rather than measured draw. The Atom has a TDP of 9 watts, while the Xeon has a TDP of 95 watts. That is a difference of 86 watts, and it makes the Atom suitable for fanless or low-power systems while the Xeon requires active cooling and a capable power delivery system.

The sockets are not compatible. The Atom uses Intel BGA 1264, a soldered mobile socket, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151, a desktop-style socket. The Atom is not upgradeable in the traditional sense, while the Xeon can be replaced with other LGA 1151 parts.

Production status and release dates differ. The Atom is listed as Active with a release date of 2024-04-07. The Xeon is listed as End-of-life with a release date of 2018-05-30. The Xeon is a mature part that has been on the market for years, while the Atom is a recent release.

The Xeon has a larger die size at 154 mm², while the Atom's die size is not recorded. The Xeon's process node is 14 nm, the Atom's is 10 nm, so the Atom packs more transistors per area despite its smaller footprint. Both parts have locked multipliers, so neither supports overclocking. The part numbers are SRNEP for the Atom and SR3WR for the Xeon.