Intel Atom x7405C vs Intel Core i3-1115G4 Comparison

The Intel Atom x7405C and Intel Core i3-1115G4 occupy different corners of Intel’s mobile lineup, and the benchmark data shows a clear overall winner despite a few surprising upsets. Across 17 head-to-head tests, the Core i3-1115G4 takes 14 wins while the Atom x7405C manages only 3, yet the Atom’s victories are concentrated in specific workloads that reveal its architectural priorities. The average benchmark scores confirm the gap: the Core i3 records an average of 6851 versus the Atom’s 6568, a difference that places the Core i3 at the 63rd percentile of all CPUs while the Atom sits just below at the 62nd percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i3-1115G4 dominates the Cinebench suite across every version and workload. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core i3 scores 497 against the Atom’s 446, a 10.3% advantage. The single-core R15 result shows a similar pattern: 70 versus 62, an 11.4% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore gap narrows slightly to 10.1% (2071 versus 1862), while the single-core test again shows a 10.3% difference (292 versus 262). Cinebench R23 repeats the multicore result exactly, with the Core i3 at 4933 and the Atom at 4435, a 10.1% edge, and the single-core R23 score is 696 versus 626, also a 10.1% margin. These consistent deltas across three generations of Cinebench indicate that the Core i3’s advantage is structural, not workload-specific.

The PassMark suite provides the most dramatic separations. In extended instructions, the Core i3 scores 4588 versus the Atom’s 2771, a massive 39.6% advantage that suggests a substantially stronger SIMD implementation. Single-thread performance shows a 35.2% gap, with the Core i3 at 2585 and the Atom at 1675, the largest single-core deficit in the entire comparison. Floating point math follows at 16% (10791 versus 9063), and integer math also shows exactly 16% (17472 versus 14669). The multithread PassMark test gives the Core i3 an 11.8% win (5915 versus 5218), while data compression shows a 9.8% edge (62444 versus 56317). Prime number finding is closer at 12% (25 versus 22), still favoring the Core i3.

The Atom x7405C’s three wins are notable for their specificity. Data encryption is its largest victory: 4004 versus 3339, a 19.9% margin that suggests a dedicated encryption pipeline or more efficient cryptographic instructions. Physics simulation gives the Atom a 12.2% win (460 versus 410), an unexpected result given the Core i3’s higher clock speeds. Random string sorting rounds out the Atom’s wins with a 5.6% edge (8089 versus 7662), indicating that its memory access patterns or string handling routines are better optimized for this particular task. These wins, while few, are not trivial: they represent real workload areas where the Atom’s architecture outperforms the newer Core design.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and design philosophies. The Atom x7405C uses the Amston Lake architecture with Gracemont cores, built on Intel’s 10 nm process and released in April 2024. It packs 4 cores and 4 threads with no hyper-threading, running at a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The Core i3-1115G4 uses the Tiger Lake-U architecture with Willow Cove-U cores, also on a 10 nm process, but launched in September 2020. It has only 2 cores but 4 threads thanks to hyper-threading, with a higher base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Atom offers 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core i3 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core (totaling 2.5 MB), and the same 6 MB of shared L3. Despite having half the cores, the Core i3 matches the Atom’s L3 capacity, which helps explain its competitive multicore scores despite the core deficit. The L2 layout is particularly telling: the Atom’s 2 MB is shared across all four cores, while the Core i3’s L2 is per-core, giving each core direct access to 1.25 MB without contention.

Memory support and PCIe lanes also separate the pair. The Atom supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core i3 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4X through a dual-channel bus (bandwidth not recorded). The Atom provides PCIe Gen 3 with 9 CPU-only lanes, while the Core i3 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 4 CPU-only lanes. The Core i3 includes integrated Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4, while the Atom has no integrated graphics at all. The Core i3’s die size is recorded at 144 mm², while the Atom’s is not specified. Both processors have TDPs in the low range, with the Atom at 12 W and the Core i3 at 15 W, and both lack ECC memory support and unlocked multipliers.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core i3-1115G4 is the superior processor for general-purpose computing. It wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, including every Cinebench test, all but one PassMark math test, and both single-thread assessments. The average benchmark score of 6851 versus 6568 gives the Core i3 a 4.3% overall advantage, and its 63rd percentile ranking versus the Atom’s 62nd percentile confirms that it sits slightly higher in the global performance distribution. The Core i3 achieves this with only 2 physical cores, relying on higher clock speeds (4.10 GHz boost versus 3.40 GHz) and hyper-threading to overcome the Atom’s 2-core advantage.

The Atom x7405C is not without merit, but its strengths are narrow. Data encryption, physics simulation, and random string sorting are the only areas where it leads, and these are specialized workloads that may not represent typical user scenarios. The Atom’s 4 physical cores without hyper-threading appear to be a liability in most multithreaded tests, as the Core i3’s 2 cores with 4 threads consistently outperform it in every multithreaded Cinebench and PassMark test. For users who prioritize encryption throughput or specific simulation workloads, the Atom’s 19.9% encryption advantage and 12.2% physics win could be decisive, but for everyone else, the Core i3 is the clear choice.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every key specification except process node and L3 cache size. The Atom uses 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Core i3 uses 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 1.70 GHz for the Atom and 2.20 GHz for the Core i3, with boost clocks of 3.40 GHz and 4.10 GHz respectively. TDP is 12 W for the Atom and 15 W for the Core i3. Sockets are incompatible: the Atom uses Intel BGA 1264, while the Core i3 uses Intel BGA 1449.

Cache configurations diverge in L1 and L2. The Atom has 96 KB of L1 per core versus the Core i3’s 80 KB, but the Atom’s L2 is 2 MB shared while the Core i3’s is 1.25 MB per core. L3 is identical at 6 MB shared for both. Memory support differs: the Atom accepts DDR4 and DDR5 with a single-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core i3 accepts DDR4 and LPDDR4X with a dual-channel bus and no recorded bandwidth figure. PCIe generations and lane counts also differ: Gen 3 with 9 lanes for the Atom, Gen 4 with 4 lanes for the Core i3.

Integrated graphics are exclusive to the Core i3, which includes Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4; the Atom has none. The Core i3 has a recorded die size of 144 mm², while the Atom’s is not specified. Release dates are roughly 3.5 years apart, with the Atom launching in April 2024 and the Core i3 in September 2020. The Atom’s launch MSRP is $57, while the Core i3’s launch MSRP is $281. Both processors are active in production, target the mobile market, and have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Atom x7405C has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i3-1115G4 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Core i3 compensates for fewer physical cores with hyper-threading.

Q: How much faster is the Core i3 in single-threaded performance?

A: The Core i3-1115G4 scores 2585 in the PassMark single-thread test versus the Atom’s 1675, a 35.2% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core i3 leads 696 to 626, a 10.1% margin.

Q: In which tests does the Atom x7405C beat the Core i3?

A: The Atom wins in three PassMark tests: data encryption (4004 versus 3339, a 19.9% lead), physics (460 versus 410, a 12.2% lead), and random string sorting (8089 versus 7662, a 5.6% lead).

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the Intel Atom x7405C and the Intel Core i3-1115G4 have ECC memory support listed as false.

Q: What is the difference in memory channel support?

A: The Atom x7405C uses a single-channel memory bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core i3-1115G4 uses a dual-channel bus. The Core i3’s bandwidth is not recorded in the database.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i3-1115G4 includes integrated graphics, specifically Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4. The Intel Atom x7405C has no integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-1115G4 is the winner in nearly every general-purpose category. Its 14 benchmark victories span Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 (both single and multi-core), PassMark data compression, extended instructions, prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multithread, and single-thread tests. The single-thread gap of 35.2% is the largest differential in either direction, making the Core i3 the clear choice for any workload that depends on per-core performance, such as web browsing, office applications, and lightly threaded productivity tools. Its multithreaded performance is also superior despite having fewer physical cores, with an 11.8% win in PassMark multithread and a 10.1% win in Cinebench R23 multicore. The Core i3’s dual-channel memory support and integrated graphics further extend its usability for everyday mobile computing, and its higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz gives it a raw speed advantage that the Atom cannot match.

The Intel Atom x7405C wins in three specific scenarios. Data encryption is its strongest category, with a 19.9% advantage that makes it the better choice for cryptographic workloads, secure communication processing, or any application that relies heavily on encryption algorithms. Physics simulation is another area of strength, with a 12.2% lead that could matter for lightweight physics calculations in embedded or industrial applications. Random string sorting shows a 5.6% edge, indicating that the Atom handles certain data organization tasks more efficiently. These wins suggest that the Atom’s architecture, despite lower clock speeds and no hyper-threading, includes optimizations that benefit specific instruction patterns. For users running encryption-heavy workloads or simulation tasks where the Atom’s physics performance is relevant, the Atom’s 12 W TDP also offers a power efficiency advantage, though the Core i3’s 15 W TDP is not dramatically higher. The Atom’s lower launch MSRP of $57 versus the Core i3’s $281 is notable, though the Core i3’s superior overall performance may justify its higher price for most applications.