Intel Atom x7405C vs Intel Xeon Gold 5317 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 dominates every recorded Cinebench test against the Intel Atom x7405C. Across six head-to-head comparisons, the Xeon Gold 5317 wins all of them, with deltas ranging from 423.1% to 432.3% in its favor. The largest single-core margin appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon Gold 5317 scores 330 against the Atom's 62, a 432.3% advantage. Multi-core results are similarly lopsided: in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon Gold 5317 posts 23,199 points versus 4,435 for the Atom, a 423.1% lead.

The pattern holds across every generation of the Cinebench suite. In R20 multi-core, the Xeon Gold 5317 records 9,743 against 1,862 for the Atom, a 423.3% gap. The single-core R20 result shows 1,375 versus 262, a 424.8% difference. Even the oldest test in the set, Cinebench R15 multi-core, shows the Xeon Gold 5317 at 2,338 and the Atom at 446, a 424.2% margin. The consistency of these deltas, all clustering around 423% to 432%, indicates that the performance gap is not workload-specific but rather reflects a fundamental throughput and efficiency difference between the two designs.

The Atom x7405C does not win any of the six recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its best relative showing is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it still trails by 423.1%. The data shows no scenario in this test suite where the Atom's architecture provides a competitive edge. For builders looking at raw compute throughput, the Xeon Gold 5317 is the clear choice, but the absolute numbers also reveal how far apart these processors are in intended use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5317 scores 23,199 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Atom x7405C scores 4,435. The Xeon Gold leads by 423.1%.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R20?

A: The Xeon Gold 5317 records 1,375 points in Cinebench R20 single-core, versus 262 for the Atom x7405C, a 424.8% advantage for the Xeon.

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ?

A: The Xeon Gold 5317 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Atom x7405C has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon also has a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz against 1.70 GHz, and a higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz versus 3.40 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon Gold 5317 supports ECC memory, while the Atom x7405C does not. The Xeon also uses an eight-channel memory bus with DDR4, whereas the Atom uses a single-channel bus supporting DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon Gold 5317 offers 187.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Atom x7405C provides 38.4 GB/s. This is a substantial gap that affects memory-intensive workloads.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Xeon Gold 5317 has an average benchmark score of 6,710, while the Atom x7405C has an average of 6,568. The difference is small, but the Xeon holds a slight edge. Both sit at the 62nd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon Gold 5317 is built on the Ice Lake-SP architecture, part of Intel's Ice Lake generation, using a 10 nm process node. It is designed for the Server/Workstation market segment and uses the Intel Socket 4189. In contrast, the Atom x7405C uses the Amston Lake architecture, also on a 10 nm node, but from the Atom generation with Gracemont cores. It targets the Mobile segment and uses Intel BGA 1264.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Xeon Gold 5317 provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Atom x7405C offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. While the Atom has a larger L1 per core, its total cache capacity is far smaller, especially in L3. The Xeon's 18 MB shared L3 is three times the Atom's 6 MB, which matters for workloads that reuse data across threads.

Memory support diverges completely. The Xeon Gold 5317 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 187.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Atom x7405C supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but only through a single-channel bus, capping bandwidth at 38.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the Atom, a critical distinction for reliability-sensitive server workloads. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Xeon provides Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only), while the Atom offers Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only).

The Xeon Gold 5317 has no integrated graphics, and the Atom x7405C lists integrated graphics as "N/A." Both processors have locked multipliers, meaning they are not intended for overclocking. The Xeon's release date is April 2021, while the Atom's is April 2024, placing them three years apart in launch timing.

Specification Differences

The core count is the most obvious difference: the Xeon Gold 5317 has 12 cores and 24 threads, the Atom x7405C has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 3.00 GHz for the Xeon and 1.70 GHz for the Atom. Boost clocks are closer, 3.60 GHz versus 3.40 GHz, but the Xeon still leads. Thermal design power is drastically different: the Xeon is rated at 150 W, while the Atom is rated at 12 W, a 12.5x gap that reflects the Atom's efficiency focus.

Socket types are incompatible: Intel Socket 4189 for the Xeon, Intel BGA 1264 for the Atom. Memory channels are eight for the Xeon and one for the Atom. Memory bandwidth is 187.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. ECC support is present on the Xeon and absent on the Atom. PCIe generation and lane count differ: Gen 4 with 64 lanes for the Xeon, Gen 3 with 9 lanes for the Atom. The Atom has a launch MSRP of $57, while the Xeon has no listed launch MSRP in the database.

Cache specifications diverge: L1 is 64 KB per core on the Xeon versus 96 KB per core on the Atom; L2 is 1 MB per core on the Xeon versus 2 MB shared on the Atom; L3 is 18 MB shared on the Xeon versus 6 MB shared on the Atom. The memory support differs, with the Xeon limited to DDR4 and the Atom supporting both DDR4 and DDR5. The production status is Active for both, but the market segments are Server/Workstation for the Xeon and Mobile for the Atom.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two entirely different products with separate design goals. The Xeon Gold 5317 is a high-throughput server processor with 12 cores, 24 threads, a 150 W TDP, and eight-channel DDR4 memory. It wins every head-to-head benchmark by a margin of at least 423.1%. Builders who need heavy multi-threaded compute, large memory bandwidth, or ECC reliability should choose the Xeon Gold 5317. Its 62nd percentile ranking and average score of 6,710 place it in the same performance class as the Intel Xeon D-2775TE, AMD EPYC 72F3, AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX, and Intel Core i9-9940X, with deltas ranging from -0.7% to 0.8%.

The Atom x7405C, by contrast, is a low-power mobile processor with 4 cores, 4 threads, a 12 W TDP, and single-channel memory. It loses every head-to-head test, but its average score of 6,568 is close to the Xeon's 6,710, which is surprising given the raw benchmark results. This is explained by its nearest rivals: the Intel Core i5-13500E, Intel Core i9-7960X, Intel Core i9-10940X, and Intel Pentium Gold G6405, all with deltas between -0.6% and 0.5%. The Atom's average score is buoyed by PassMark tests that are not in the head-to-head set, such as data compression at 56,317, integer math at 14,669, and floating point math at 9,063. These scores suggest that the Atom handles specific integer and encryption workloads better than its Cinebench results imply.

For a server or workstation, the Xeon Gold 5317 is the only rational choice from the data. For embedded or mobile applications where power consumption and physical footprint matter, the Atom x7405C's 12 W TDP is a decisive advantage, but its performance is a fraction of the Xeon's in every recorded Cinebench test.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon Gold 5317 wins in every scenario that demands raw compute throughput. Cinebench multi-core tests, which stress all cores and threads, show the Xeon ahead by 423.1% to 424.2%. Single-core tests show the same pattern, with the Xeon leading by 423.2% to 432.3%. The memory bandwidth gap, 187.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s, makes the Xeon the pick for data-heavy workloads such as large database operations, virtualization hosts, or scientific simulations. ECC support and 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes further cement its role in server infrastructure.

The Atom x7405C wins in power-constrained environments. Its 12 W TDP is a fraction of the Xeon's 150 W, making it suitable for fanless designs, battery-powered devices, or compact industrial systems. Its single-channel DDR4/DDR5 support and 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are enough for lightweight tasks like network appliances, IoT gateways, or simple edge compute. The PassMark results show that the Atom can handle data compression (56,317), data encryption (4,004), and extended instructions (2,771) at levels that are not catastrophic, even if they lag the Xeon. For workloads that are not CPU-bound, such as I/O management or low-rate packet processing, the Atom's low power draw is a practical trade-off.

The Xeon Gold 5317 also wins on core count and thread count, with 12 cores and 24 threads versus 4 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon's larger L3 cache (18 MB shared) and higher memory bandwidth make it better for workloads with high cache pressure or memory streaming. The Atom's larger L1 per core (96 KB) and shared L2 (2 MB) are interesting but do not compensate for its overall lower throughput. In short, the Xeon is for compute-first environments, the Atom is for efficiency-first environments. The benchmark data shows no overlap where the Atom outperforms the Xeon in Cinebench, but the power envelope is a deciding factor that the numbers cannot fully capture.