CPU Comparison

The Intel Atom x7213RE and Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 represent opposite poles of Intel’s design philosophy: one is a 9-watt, two-core embedded processor built for efficiency, the other a 140-watt, eight-core workstation part from a previous generation. The data shows a complete sweep for the Xeon in every shared benchmark, yet the Atom’s existence is justified by a radically different set of priorities. This analysis compares the two across architecture, use cases, specifications, and head-to-head results, relying solely on the provided fact pack.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Atom x7213RE has 2 cores and 2 threads.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 12080 versus the Atom’s 2244, a delta of -81.4% from the Atom’s perspective. The gap is similar in Cinebench R20 multi-core (5073 vs 942, -81.4%).

Q: Does the Atom win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head table lists 5 tests, and the Xeon wins all 5, with deltaPct values ranging from -81.4% to -81.6% for the Atom.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon supports quad-channel memory with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Atom supports single-channel memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E5-1680 v4 supports ECC memory, while the Atom x7213RE does not.

Q: What are the release dates?

A: The Atom x7213RE was released on 2024-04-07, while the Xeon E5-1680 v4 was released on 2016-06-19. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life, while the Atom is active.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two processors is vast. The Atom x7213RE is built on the Amston Lake architecture using a 10 nm process node, whereas the Xeon E5-1680 v4 uses the Broadwell-EP architecture on a 14 nm node. The Atom’s generation is listed as “Atom (Gracemont),” indicating a low-power core design, while the Xeon’s generation is “Xeon E5 (Broadwell-EP),” a high-core-count server design.

Core and cache layouts differ fundamentally. The Atom has 2 cores with 2 threads, 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has 8 cores with 16 threads, 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and a much larger 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon also lists 3,400 million transistors and a 246 mm² die size, while the Atom does not report those figures.

Feature support also diverges sharply. The Atom includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 16EU), while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Atom supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, but only in single-channel mode. The Xeon supports only DDR4, but in quad-channel mode. ECC memory is absent on the Atom, present on the Xeon. PCIe lanes also differ: the Atom provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes, while the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes.

Clock behavior reinforces the positioning. The Atom has a 2.00 GHz base clock and a 3.40 GHz boost clock, while the Xeon has a 3.40 GHz base clock and a 4.00 GHz boost clock. The Xeon’s higher base clock, combined with four times the cores, explains its dominance in threaded workloads. The Atom’s lower clocks and Gracemont efficiency cores are designed for minimal power draw, not maximum throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 wins unequivocally in every measured head-to-head benchmark. The data shows the Xeon leading by roughly 81% in all Cinebench tests, whether single-core or multi-core. For any workload that depends on raw CPU throughput, video rendering, 3D modeling, scientific computation, or server-side processing, the Xeon is the clear choice. Its 8 cores and 16 threads provide a fourfold increase in parallelism over the Atom’s 2 cores and 2 threads, and its higher clocks (3.40 GHz base, 4.00 GHz boost) ensure it also wins single-threaded tasks.

The Atom x7213RE, despite losing all shared benchmarks, wins in scenarios the Xeon cannot even enter. Its 9-watt TDP makes it suitable for fanless or passively cooled embedded systems, battery-powered industrial controllers, or always-on appliances where the Xeon’s 140-watt TDP would be prohibitive. The Atom’s integrated UHD Graphics 16EU provides a display output without a separate GPU, which is a critical feature for compact embedded boards. Its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory gives system designers flexibility, though only with a single-channel interface. The Atom also has an active production status, while the Xeon is end-of-life, meaning the Atom remains available for new designs. The Xeon’s quad-channel memory and 40 PCIe lanes, however, make it the only option for memory-bandwidth-intensive tasks or systems requiring many expansion cards.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals the full extent of the divergence beyond raw performance.

• Cores and Threads: Atom has 2 cores and 2 threads; Xeon has 8 cores and 16 threads.
• Clocks: Atom base is 2.00 GHz, boost is 3.40 GHz; Xeon base is 3.40 GHz, boost is 4.00 GHz.
• TDP: Atom is 9 watts; Xeon is 140 watts.
• Socket: Atom uses Intel BGA 1264; Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3.
• Process Node: Atom is 10 nm; Xeon is 14 nm.
• Transistors and Die Size: Xeon reports 3,400 million transistors and 246 mm²; Atom reports neither.
• Cache: Atom has 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 shared, 6 MB L3 shared; Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 20 MB L3 shared.
• Memory Support: Atom supports DDR4 and DDR5, single-channel; Xeon supports DDR4, quad-channel.
• Memory Bandwidth: Atom is 38.4 GB/s; Xeon is 76.8 GB/s.
• ECC Memory: Atom does not support it; Xeon does.
• PCIe: Atom has Gen 3, 9 lanes; Xeon has Gen 3, 40 lanes.
• Integrated Graphics: Atom has UHD Graphics 16EU; Xeon has none.
• Market Segment: Atom is Mobile; Xeon is Desktop.
• Production Status: Atom is Active; Xeon is End-of-life.
• Release Date: Atom is 2024-04-07; Xeon is 2016-06-19.
• Launch MSRP: Atom is $42; Xeon is $1723.
• Part Number: Atom is SRNEP; Xeon is SR2P8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is one-sided, with the Xeon E5-1680 v4 winning all five recorded tests. The largest deltas appear in multi-core workloads, where the Xeon’s core advantage is fully utilized.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1217 versus the Atom’s 226, a delta of -81.4%. This is the smallest absolute margin in points but still a crushing defeat. The same -81.4% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon scores 5073 and the Atom scores 942. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon reaches 12080 against the Atom’s 2244, again -81.4%. These consistent percentages across R15, R20, and R23 indicate the Atom’s performance scales linearly with the Xeon’s across different rendering workloads, but at roughly one-fifth the output.

Single-core tests show a slightly larger relative gap. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 716 versus the Atom’s 132, a delta of -81.6%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 1705 versus the Atom’s 316, a delta of -81.5%. The Xeon’s higher boost clock (4.00 GHz vs 3.40 GHz) and older but more powerful Broadwell core design give it an edge even when only one thread is active. The Atom’s Gracemont efficiency cores, while modern, are optimized for power saving rather than peak single-thread performance.

The benchmark data also includes scores not present in the head-to-head table, which further illustrate the gap. The Atom’s PassMark multi-thread score is 2641, and its single-thread score is 1601. The Xeon has no PassMark scores listed in the fact pack, but its Cinebench results are sufficient to establish dominance. Notably, the Atom’s average benchmark score is 3520, while the Xeon’s is 3494. This near-identical average is deceptive: the Atom’s average is driven by a large number of PassMark integer, floating-point, and encryption tests where it scores moderately, while the Xeon’s average is based on fewer, higher-scoring Cinebench results. Both processors sit at the 55th percentile versus all CPUs, according to the fact pack.

The nearest rivals for each processor reinforce their distinct positions. The Atom’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-12300T (avg score 3525, delta -0.1%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT (avg score 3515, delta 0.2%). The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E-2246G (avg score 3492, delta 0.1%) and the Intel Core i9-9900T (avg score 3499, delta -0.2%). These comparisons show that despite their massive performance difference, both chips occupy a similar overall performance tier relative to the broader CPU market, which speaks to the Atom’s surprisingly strong showing in pure integer and floating-point throughput per watt.