CPU Comparison

The Intel Atom x7433RE and Intel Celeron G6900 are both active, budget-oriented Intel processors, yet they target fundamentally different market segments and use cases. The Atom x7433RE is a 4-core, 4-thread mobile chip built on the Amston Lake architecture with a 9W TDP, while the Celeron G6900 is a 2-core, 2-thread desktop part based on Alder Lake with a 46W TDP. Despite the Celeron’s higher power envelope and more recent desktop pedigree, the overall benchmark averages are remarkably close, with the Atom posting an average score of 5601 and the Celeron trailing at 5561, a 0.7% difference that places the Atom slightly ahead in aggregate performance. The data reveals a nuanced picture, with the Celeron dominating single-thread and floating-point workloads, while the Atom counters with notable wins in encryption and integer math.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Atom x7433RE has a higher average benchmark score of 5601, compared to the Intel Celeron G6900’s 5561. This places the Atom 0.7% ahead of the Celeron in the overall ranking.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Celeron G6900 is significantly stronger in single-threaded workloads. In the PassMark single-thread test, the Celeron scores 2709, which is 42.1% higher than the Atom’s 1568. The Celeron also leads in Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 537 versus the Atom’s 499, a 7.1% advantage.

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core Cinebench benchmarks?

A: The Celeron G6900 wins in all multi-core Cinebench tests. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Celeron scores 3808, while the Atom scores 3535, a 7.2% deficit for the Atom. The Celeron also leads in R20 multi-core (1599 vs 1484).

Q: Are there any workloads where the Atom x7433RE beats the Celeron?

A: Yes. The Atom wins in PassMark data encryption (3029 vs 2235, a 35.5% lead), PassMark integer math (13054 vs 9577, a 36.3% lead), and PassMark random string sorting (5399 vs 5149, a 4.9% lead). These are the only three head-to-head benchmarks where the Atom comes out ahead.

Q: What are the core count and TDP differences between the two?

A: The Atom x7433RE has 4 cores and 4 threads with a 9W TDP, while the Celeron G6900 has 2 cores and 2 threads with a 46W TDP. Despite having half the cores, the Celeron consumes over five times the power.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentage of overall wins in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Celeron G6900 wins 13 out of 16 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Atom x7433RE wins only 3. This gives the Celeron a dominant 81.25% win rate in direct comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on different architectural foundations, despite sharing the same 10 nm process node and Intel as the foundry. The Atom x7433RE uses the Amston Lake architecture, specifically the Atom (Gracemont) core generation, while the Celeron G6900 is based on Alder Lake, using the Alder Lake-S Celeron generation. This fundamental difference explains the divergent core counts: the Atom offers 4 cores and 4 threads, whereas the Celeron provides only 2 cores and 2 threads. The Atom’s design targets efficiency and multi-threaded throughput within a low-power envelope, while the Celeron prioritizes single-thread performance with fewer, faster cores.

Cache configurations also differ markedly. The Atom x7433RE features 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. In contrast, the Celeron G6900 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Atom’s larger L3 cache (6 MB vs 4 MB) may contribute to its superior performance in data-intensive tasks like encryption and integer math.

Memory support shows both processors can handle DDR4 and DDR5, but the memory bus configuration differs: the Atom is single-channel, while the Celeron is dual-channel. The Atom has a specified memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, whereas the Celeron’s bandwidth is not listed. PCIe support also varies, with the Atom offering Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only), while the Celeron provides Gen 5 connectivity. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have integrated graphics, the Atom with UHD Graphics 32EU and the Celeron with UHD Graphics 710.

The physical and market characteristics further separate these chips. The Atom uses an Intel BGA 1264 socket and is classified as a Mobile segment processor, while the Celeron uses an Intel Socket 1700 and is a Desktop part. The Atom has a base clock of 1.50 GHz with a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, whereas the Celeron has a fixed base clock of 3.40 GHz with no boost capability. The Atom’s TDP is just 9W, compared to the Celeron’s 46W, highlighting the Atom’s efficiency-first design philosophy. Both processors are actively produced, but the Atom was released in April 2024, while the Celeron debuted in January 2022.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the Intel Celeron G6900 is the better choice for users prioritizing raw single-thread performance, floating-point math, and general multi-core Cinebench workloads. It wins 13 of 16 head-to-head benchmarks, including all Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23) in both single and multi-core variants, with margins ranging from 7% to 7.2% in the Celeron’s favor. Its PassMark single-thread score of 2709 is 42.1% higher than the Atom’s, making it the obvious pick for lightly-threaded applications, legacy software, or tasks that rely on high clock speeds.

However, the Intel Atom x7433RE is not without merit. Its 4-core design and larger L3 cache deliver decisive victories in three specific areas: data encryption (35.5% ahead), integer math (36.3% ahead), and random string sorting (4.9% ahead). The Atom’s 9W TDP versus the Celeron’s 46W TDP makes it dramatically more power-efficient, and its Mobile segment classification suggests it is designed for embedded or low-power systems where thermal and energy constraints are paramount. For users who need a compact, efficient processor for fanless or battery-powered designs, the Atom is the superior option, even if its overall benchmark average is only 0.7% higher.

The choice ultimately depends on the use case. Desktop users who want a socketed, dual-channel memory processor with strong single-thread performance should select the Celeron G6900. System integrators or embedded designers who value low power consumption, higher core counts, and specific cryptographic or integer-heavy workloads will find the Atom x7433RE better suited, despite its single-channel memory limitation. The Celeron’s higher TDP and desktop orientation give it a performance edge in most tests, but the Atom’s efficiency and targeted strengths make it a legitimate alternative in the right context.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Atom x7433RE | Intel Celeron G6900 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 4 | 2 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.40 GHz | None |

| TDP | 9W | 46W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1264 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Amston Lake | Alder Lake |

| Generation | Atom (Gracemont) | Celeron (Alder Lake-S) |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (shared) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | Not specified |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5 |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 32EU | UHD Graphics 710 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | April 2024 | January 2022 |

| Part Number | SRNEQ | SRL67 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Celeron G6900 establishes its dominance early in the Cinebench suite, winning every multi-core test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Celeron scores 383 against the Atom’s 356, a 7% advantage. This pattern continues in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Celeron’s 1599 beats the Atom’s 1484 by 7.2%. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows a similar 7.2% gap, with scores of 3808 for the Celeron and 3535 for the Atom. The Celeron’s single-core Cinebench results are also consistently ahead: R20 single-core (225 vs 209, 7.1% lead) and R23 single-core (537 vs 499, 7.1% lead).

The PassMark suite reveals a more varied performance landscape. The Celeron wins the data compression test narrowly, scoring 44464 versus 43671, a 1.8% margin. The extended instructions test shows a massive Celeron advantage, with 4201 versus 2157, a 48.7% lead. The Celeron also excels in find prime numbers (34 vs 19, 44.1% ahead), floating-point math (11956 vs 8582, 28.2% ahead), multithread (4488 vs 4159, 7.3% ahead), physics (407 vs 323, 20.6% ahead), and single-thread tests (2709 vs 1568, 42.1% ahead). The single-thread result is particularly telling, as it underscores the Celeron’s superior per-core execution capability.

The Atom x7433RE fights back in three PassMark categories. Its most significant win is in integer math, where it scores 13054 versus the Celeron’s 9577, a 36.3% advantage. This suggests the Atom’s 4-core design and larger L3 cache are well-suited to parallel integer operations. The Atom also wins decisively in data encryption, scoring 3029 against 2235, a 35.5% lead, indicating strong cryptographic throughput. Its third win comes in random string sorting, where it scores 5399 versus 5149, a 4.9% margin. While these three victories are notable, they cannot offset the Celeron’s 13 total wins, which span both Cinebench and most PassMark tests. The overall benchmark average tells a similar story: the Atom’s 5601 slightly edges out the Celeron’s 5561, but the Celeron’s consistency across a broader range of workloads makes it the more versatile performer.