Intel Atom x7213RE vs Intel Xeon E-2286G Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2286G and Intel Atom x7213RE sit at opposite ends of Intel’s performance spectrum, yet both appear in the same database percentile. The Xeon E-2286G, a six-core Coffee Lake server processor from the Xeon E-2200 series, targets workstation and server workloads with a 95 W thermal envelope. The Atom x7213RE, a two-core Gracemont-based mobile chip from the Amston Lake family, draws only 9 W and is designed for low-power embedded and edge applications. Despite the vast gulf in raw compute, the database shows both CPUs landing at the 55th percentile when measured against all processors, reflecting different benchmark mixes. The head-to-head results, however, tell a lopsided story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E-2286G dominates every recorded head-to-head benchmark, winning all five comparisons with deltas that hover near 430 percent. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 1198 points against the Atom’s 226 points, a 430.1 percent advantage. This gap is not a narrow margin; it represents a fundamental difference in parallel throughput. The Xeon’s six cores and twelve threads allow it to process multiple workloads simultaneously, while the Atom’s two cores and two threads limit it to basic sequential tasks.

Cinebench R20 multicore shows a similar pattern. The Xeon produces 4993 points, while the Atom manages 942 points, a 430 percent difference. The multicore workload scales with core count and thread scheduling, and the Xeon’s hardware threads provide nearly five times the render throughput. The single-core results are equally decisive. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 704, and the Atom scores 132, a 433.3 percent gap. Even in single-threaded tasks, where core count matters less, the Xeon’s higher clock speeds and more advanced core architecture pull far ahead.

Cinebench R23 multicore reinforces the trend. The Xeon reaches 11889 points, while the Atom stops at 2244 points, a 429.8 percent delta. This benchmark stresses sustained all-core loads, and the Xeon’s 4.00 GHz base clock and 4.90 GHz boost clock allow it to maintain high frequency across all six cores. The Atom’s 2.00 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost, combined with only two cores, cannot compete in sustained rendering. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 1678 against the Atom’s 316, a 431 percent difference. The Xeon’s per-core performance is roughly four and a half times higher, which is consistent across every recorded test.

The data shows no scenario where the Atom wins. The Xeon leads by at least 429.8 percent in every benchmark. The smallest margin is in R23 multicore, yet even that gap is enormous. These results indicate that the Xeon E-2286G is a high-throughput processor, while the Atom x7213RE is optimized for efficiency, not performance. The Atom’s benchmark scores, including a Passmark single-thread score of 1601 and a multi-thread score of 2641, are respectable for a 9 W chip, but they fall far short of the Xeon’s Cinebench numbers.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different architectural generations and design philosophies. The Xeon E-2286G uses the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake-S WS codename, built on Intel’s 14 nm process node. It has six cores and twelve threads, with a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Atom x7213RE uses the Amston Lake architecture, codenamed Amston Lake, built on a 10 nm process node. It has two cores and two threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The process node difference (14 nm versus 10 nm) indicates a generational shift in transistor density and power efficiency.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Atom offers 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon’s larger L3 pool (12 MB versus 6 MB) benefits workloads with large working sets, while the Atom’s higher per-core L1 (96 KB versus 64 KB) suggests a focus on latency-sensitive single-thread operations, though its slower clocks limit that benefit.

Memory support differs as well. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus, with a peak memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability. The Atom supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, but over a single-channel bus, with a peak memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Atom does not support ECC memory. The Xeon’s dual-channel configuration provides higher bandwidth for multi-core workloads, while the Atom’s single-channel setup is adequate for low-power tasks but restricts memory-intensive operations.

PCIe connectivity also separates the two. The Xeon offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Atom offers PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon’s additional lanes allow more expansion cards or NVMe drives, aligning with its server/workstation market segment. The Atom’s fewer lanes suit compact embedded designs. Integrated graphics differ too: the Xeon includes HD Graphics P630, while the Atom includes UHD Graphics 16EU. The Atom’s graphics core has fewer execution units, consistent with its low-power mobile positioning.

The physical packages reflect their targets. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151, a desktop-derived socket that supports interchangeable processors. The Atom uses Intel BGA 1264, a soldered ball-grid array that is not user-replaceable. The Xeon’s die size is 154 mm², while the Atom’s die size is not recorded. The Xeon’s generation is listed as Xeon E (Coffee Lake), while the Atom’s generation is Atom (Gracemont). Production status also differs: the Xeon is end-of-life, while the Atom is active.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2286G is significantly faster in single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 704 versus the Atom’s 132, a 433.3 percent gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 1678 against the Atom’s 316, a 431 percent difference.

Q: How does multicore performance compare?

A: The Xeon leads in all multicore benchmarks. Cinebench R23 multicore shows the Xeon at 11889 points and the Atom at 2244 points, a 429.8 percent advantage. Cinebench R15 multicore shows a 430.1 percent gap (1198 versus 226).

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Xeon supports DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The Atom supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support.

Q: Are the processors socket-compatible?

A: No. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151, while the Atom uses Intel BGA 1264, which is a soldered package. They are not interchangeable.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Xeon has a thermal design power (TDP) of 95 W, while the Atom has a TDP of 9 W. The Atom draws far less power, making it suited for battery-powered or passively cooled systems.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Xeon has six cores and twelve threads, while the Atom has two cores and two threads. The Xeon’s hyper-threading doubles its thread count, while the Atom lacks hyper-threading.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates the Intel Xeon E-2286G is the superior performer for compute-intensive tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 11889 is more than five times the Atom’s 2244, and its single-core score of 1678 is over five times the Atom’s 316. For any workload involving rendering, compilation, simulation, or heavy multitasking, the Xeon is the appropriate choice. Its twelve threads, 12 MB of L3 cache, dual-channel ECC memory support, and 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes provide a full server feature set. The Xeon’s 95 W TDP is reasonable for a desktop or rack server, and its 4.90 GHz boost clock ensures responsive single-threaded performance.

The Intel Atom x7213RE, however, serves a completely different purpose. Its 9 W TDP makes it ideal for embedded systems, industrial controllers, and fanless designs where power efficiency is paramount. The Atom’s 2.00 GHz base clock and 3.40 GHz boost clock are modest, but its 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth (via single-channel DDR4 or DDR5) is sufficient for lightweight tasks. The Atom’s lack of ECC support and fewer PCIe lanes (9 versus 16) limit its server usability, but its active production status and 2024 release date indicate it is a current product for low-power markets.

The database shows both processors at the 55th percentile against all CPUs, which reflects the Atom’s inclusion of Passmark tests that may skew its average. The Xeon’s average benchmark score is 3610, while the Atom’s is 3520. The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3 (avg score 3608, delta 0.1 percent) and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 (avg score 3613, delta -0.1 percent). The Atom’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-12300T (avg score 3525, delta -0.1 percent) and AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT (avg score 3515, delta 0.2 percent). These rival comparisons show the Xeon competes with older high-core server parts, while the Atom aligns with low-power desktop chips in average score, despite its far lower absolute performance.

Choose the Xeon if you need maximum throughput, ECC reliability, and a proven server platform. Choose the Atom if you prioritize minimal power draw, compact BGA integration, and only need basic computational capability. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the Atom remains active, so long-term availability favors the Atom, but performance favors the Xeon overwhelmingly.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 6 (Xeon) versus 2 (Atom)
• Threads: 12 (Xeon) versus 2 (Atom)
• Base Clock: 4.00 GHz (Xeon) versus 2.00 GHz (Atom)
• Boost Clock: 4.90 GHz (Xeon) versus 3.40 GHz (Atom)
• TDP: 95 W (Xeon) versus 9 W (Atom)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1151 (Xeon) versus Intel BGA 1264 (Atom)
• Architecture: Coffee Lake (Xeon) versus Amston Lake (Atom)
• Codename: Coffee Lake-S WS (Xeon) versus Amston Lake (Atom)
• Generation: Xeon E (Coffee Lake) versus Atom (Gracemont)
• Process Node: 14 nm (Xeon) versus 10 nm (Atom)
• Die Size: 154 mm² (Xeon) versus not recorded (Atom)
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core (Xeon) versus 96 KB per core (Atom)
• L2 Cache: 256 KB per core (Xeon) versus 2 MB shared (Atom)
• L3 Cache: 12 MB shared (Xeon) versus 6 MB shared (Atom)
• Memory Support: DDR4 (Xeon) versus DDR4, DDR5 (Atom)
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel (Xeon) versus Single-channel (Atom)
• Memory Bandwidth: 42.7 GB/s (Xeon) versus 38.4 GB/s (Atom)
• ECC Memory: True (Xeon) versus False (Atom)
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 Lanes (Xeon) versus Gen 3, 9 Lanes (Atom)
• Integrated Graphics: HD Graphics P630 (Xeon) versus UHD Graphics 16EU (Atom)
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation (Xeon) versus Mobile (Atom)
• Production Status: End-of-life (Xeon) versus Active (Atom)
• Release Date: 2019-05-28 (Xeon) versus 2024-04-07 (Atom)
• Launch MSRP: $450 (Xeon) versus $42 (Atom)
• Part Number: SRF7C (Xeon) versus SRNEP (Atom)

The Xeon and Atom share the same manufacturer, Intel, and both have locked multipliers, but they diverge on nearly every other specification. The Xeon’s larger core count, higher clocks, and server-oriented features make it a workstation-class part, while the Atom’s minimal power draw and modern 10 nm process target ultra-efficient mobile and embedded designs. The launch MSRP difference reflects their positioning: the Xeon at $450 is a high-end workstation processor, while the Atom at $42 is a low-cost embedded solution. Both processors occupy the 55th percentile in the database, but their real-world roles could not be more different.