CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon W-2175 and Intel Atom x7433RE occupy opposite ends of Intel’s performance and power spectrum, yet both target embedded and workstation-adjacent roles. The Xeon W-2175 is a 14-core Skylake-W part built for sustained multi-threaded throughput, while the Atom x7433RE is a 4-core Gracemont-based design optimized for low-power, fanless environments. Benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the Atom’s modern node and integrated graphics give it a distinct role in edge deployments. The following analysis separates where each processor wins, what architectural choices drive those results, and how the raw numbers compare across Cinebench workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W-2175 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the data set, taking all 5 Cinebench comparisons. Its largest margin comes in multi-core tests: in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 19951 against the Atom’s 3535, a 464.4% advantage. The single-core gap is similarly lopsided, 2816 versus 499 in R23 single-core, a 464.3% delta. This makes the Xeon the clear choice for rendering, simulation, or any workload that scales across cores and threads. The 14-core, 28-thread configuration provides 10 more cores and 24 more threads than the Atom, and the 140W TDP reflects the thermal headroom needed to sustain that throughput.

The Atom x7433RE, despite losing every benchmark, wins on deployment flexibility. Its 9W TDP is a fraction of the Xeon’s 140W, and its BGA 1264 socket allows for compact, soldered designs. The integrated UHD Graphics 32EU eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display or media tasks, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. For fanless industrial PCs, edge gateways, or low-power network appliances, the Atom’s efficiency and small footprint are more relevant than raw Cinebench scores. The data shows the Xeon is a compute powerhouse, but the Atom’s niche is defined by power constraints, not benchmark victories.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design eras. The Xeon W-2175 uses the Skylake-W architecture on a 14 nm process, with a die size of 484 mm². Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, plus 19.25 MB of shared L3. The Atom x7433RE uses the newer Amston Lake architecture (Gracemont cores) on a 10 nm process, with 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. The Atom’s smaller process node allows for higher efficiency per clock, but the Xeon’s larger core count and higher clock speeds dominate in absolute performance.

Memory support differs substantially. The Xeon supports DDR4 in quad-channel configuration with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The Atom supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but only in single-channel mode, with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. This makes the Xeon more suitable for memory-intensive server workloads where bandwidth and error correction are critical. PCIe connectivity also diverges: the Xeon provides 48 Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the Atom offers just 9 Gen 3 lanes. The Xeon’s socket is Intel Socket 2066, a high-end desktop and workstation platform, while the Atom uses soldered BGA 1264. The Xeon is end-of-life, released in 2017, while the Atom remains in active production, released in 2024.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon W-2175 scores 19951, which is 464.4% higher than the Intel Atom x7433RE’s 3535. The Xeon wins all multi-core tests in the data set.

Q: Does the Atom x7433RE support ECC memory?

A: No. The Atom x7433RE does not support ECC memory, while the Xeon W-2175 includes ECC support and uses DDR4 in a quad-channel configuration.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The Xeon W-2175 has a TDP of 140W, while the Atom x7433RE has a TDP of 9W. This 131W difference makes the Atom suitable for passive cooling and battery-powered devices.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Atom x7433RE has integrated UHD Graphics 32EU. The Xeon W-2175 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: How do they compare in single-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon W-2175 scores 2816, which is 464.3% higher than the Atom x7433RE’s 499. The Xeon’s 4.30 GHz boost clock versus the Atom’s 3.40 GHz boost clock explains part of this gap.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: No. The Xeon W-2175 is end-of-life, while the Atom x7433RE is listed as active production. The Xeon was released in 2017, the Atom in 2024.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every specification category. Core and thread counts are the most obvious: the Xeon W-2175 has 14 cores and 28 threads, while the Atom x7433RE has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the Xeon and 1.50 GHz for the Atom; boost clocks are 4.30 GHz and 3.40 GHz, respectively. TDP is 140W versus 9W, a 131W gap that defines their thermal envelopes.

Cache configurations are structurally different. The Xeon uses per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (1 MB) with a shared 19.25 MB L3. The Atom also has per-core L1 (96 KB) but uses a shared 2 MB L2 and a shared 6 MB L3. Memory support is quad-channel DDR4 for the Xeon, versus single-channel DDR4/DDR5 for the Atom. Memory bandwidth is 85.3 GB/s for the Xeon, versus 38.4 GB/s for the Atom. PCIe lanes are 48 Gen 3 for the Xeon, versus 9 Gen 3 for the Atom. The Xeon’s socket is Intel Socket 2066, whereas the Atom uses BGA 1264. The Xeon lacks integrated graphics, while the Atom includes UHD Graphics 32EU. Manufacturing process differs: 14 nm for the Xeon, 10 nm for the Atom.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent and overwhelming victory for the Xeon W-2175 across all five tested workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2010 versus the Atom’s 356, a 464.6% delta, the largest percentage margin in the data set. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the same pattern: 8379 for the Xeon, 1484 for the Atom, also a 464.6% delta. The R23 multi-core test yields 19951 versus 3535, a 464.4% advantage. These results are nearly identical in relative terms, indicating that the performance gap scales linearly with core count and clock frequency.

Single-core results tell a similar story, albeit with slightly different margins. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 1182 against the Atom’s 209, a 465.6% delta, the highest percentage win for the Xeon in any test. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2816 versus 499, a 464.3% delta. The single-core advantage is driven by the Xeon’s 4.30 GHz boost clock, which exceeds the Atom’s 3.40 GHz by 0.90 GHz, despite the Atom’s newer Gracemont architecture. The Atom’s higher per-core L1 cache (96 KB versus 64 KB) does not compensate for the clock deficit in these tests.

The Atom’s benchmark profile, while absent from the head-to-head table, does include Passmark scores that show its strengths. In Passmark data compression, the Atom scores 43671, and in integer math it scores 13054. These numbers are not compared here because no equivalent Passmark data exists for the Xeon in the benchmark database. However, the Atom’s average benchmark score of 5601 places it at the 61st percentile of all CPUs, identical to the Xeon’s percentile rank of 61. This indicates that in the broader benchmark database, the Atom’s efficiency-focused design performs respectably for its power class, even though it cannot match the Xeon’s absolute compute output.

The Xeon W-2175’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E-2388G (avg score 5805, delta -0.6%), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X (5730, delta +0.7%), the AMD EPYC 7401P (5814, delta -0.8%), and the AMD EPYC 7351 (5710, delta +1.1%). The Atom x7433RE’s nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-12700T (5606, delta -0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 3700 (5610, delta -0.2%), the Intel Core i9-11900KB (5587, delta +0.3%), and the Intel Celeron G6900 (5561, delta +0.7%). These rival lists show that both processors sit near the 5600-5800 average score range, despite their vastly different core counts and power draws, a reminder that average benchmark scores obscure the divergent workload characteristics these CPUs are designed for.