Intel Atom x7809C vs Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits these two processors into clearly different profiles. The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL wins 14 of the 17 recorded tests, while the Intel Atom x7809C takes 3. The overall average benchmark score favors the Core Ultra 3 105UL at 13061 versus 12607 for the Atom x7809C, a gap of roughly 3.6%. Both sit in the 67th to 68th percentile of all CPUs in the database, so the overall class placement is similar, but the distribution of strengths could not be more different.

The single-threaded results are the most lopsided. In Passmark single thread, the Core Ultra 3 105UL scores 3382 against 1462 for the Atom x7809C, a 131.3% advantage. That is the largest delta in the entire head-to-head set. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the same pattern at a smaller scale: 1234 versus 1129, a 9.3% win for the Core Ultra 3 105UL. Cinebench R20 single-core repeats the 9.3% margin with 518 versus 474. The Core Ultra 3 105UL also leads in Cinebench R15 single-core by 9.7%, scoring 124 versus 113.

Multi-threaded rendering follows the same direction. Cinebench R23 multi-core gives the Core Ultra 3 105UL 8742 against 7997, a 9.3% edge. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 3671 versus 3358, also 9.3%. Cinebench R15 multi-core has 881 versus 805, a 9.4% win. Passmark multithread adds another 9.3% margin at 10285 versus 9409. These consistent 9.3% to 9.7% margins across the Cinebench suite point to a uniform clock-driven advantage in lightly and heavily threaded workloads alike.

The math workloads heavily favor the Core Ultra 3 105UL. Passmark floating point math shows 30750 versus 17856, a 72.2% lead. Passmark integer math has 41171 versus 28946, a 42.2% advantage. Passmark find prime numbers gives 44 versus 29, a 51.7% win. Passmark extended instructions is closer at 5634 versus 5509, a 2.3% edge for the Core Ultra 3 105UL. Passmark physics adds a modest 4.7% win at 718 versus 686.

The Atom x7809C wins the three data-oriented Passmark tests. Data compression goes to the Atom at 111525 versus 93961, a 15.7% margin. Data encryption gives the Atom 7832 versus 6354, an 18.9% win. The largest Atom victory arrives in random string sorting, where the Atom scores 15728 against 11179, a 28.9% advantage. These three wins are concentrated in workloads that reward the Atom's architecture rather than raw clock speed.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different Intel design families. The Core Ultra 3 105UL uses Meteor Lake, specifically the Meteor Lake-PS variant, built on a 7 nm process at Intel's foundry. It belongs to the Core Ultra Series 1 and carries the generation label "Ultra 3 (Meteor Lake-PS)". The Atom x7809C uses Amston Lake, built on a 10 nm process, with the generation label "Atom (Gracemont)". The process node difference alone explains part of the performance gap, but the core designs diverge even further.

Both have 8 physical cores, but thread counts differ. The Core Ultra 3 105UL supports 10 threads, meaning 2 of its cores can handle extra threads. The Atom x7809C has 8 threads, one per core, with no hyperthreading. Base clocks also differ: the Core Ultra 3 105UL runs at 1.50 GHz base and boosts to 4.20 GHz, while the Atom x7809C starts at 2.00 GHz and boosts to 3.60 GHz. The higher boost clock on the Core Ultra 3 105UL explains its large single-thread lead, while the Atom's higher base clock does not translate into wins outside the data-oriented tests.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Core Ultra 3 105UL has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The Atom x7809C has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per module, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Core Ultra 3 105UL has nearly double the L3 capacity, which helps in multi-threaded rendering and math workloads. Memory support also diverges: the Core Ultra 3 105UL supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Atom x7809C supports DDR4 and DDR5 but only through a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. That bandwidth gap is substantial, 89.6 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s, and it shows up in memory-sensitive tasks.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Core Ultra 3 105UL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Atom x7809C provides Gen 3 with 9 lanes. The Core Ultra 3 105UL also includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG graphics with 48 execution units; the Atom x7809C has no integrated graphics at all. The socket types are incompatible: Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra 3 105UL versus Intel BGA 1264 for the Atom x7809C. The Core Ultra 3 105UL targets the desktop market segment, while the Atom x7809C is classified as mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL dominates in single-thread tests. Passmark single thread shows 3382 versus 1462, a 131.3% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core gives 1234 versus 1129, a 9.3% edge. The Core Ultra 3 105UL wins every single-core benchmark in the head-to-head set.

Q: Why does the Atom x7809C win in data compression and string sorting?

A: The Atom x7809C wins Passmark data compression by 15.7%, data encryption by 18.9%, and random string sorting by 28.9%. These workloads appear to favor the Atom's Gracemont core architecture, which handles certain data manipulation patterns more efficiently despite lower clock speeds and a smaller cache.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: Both processors have 8 physical cores. The Core Ultra 3 105UL supports 10 threads, meaning 2 cores can process 2 threads each. The Atom x7809C has 8 threads, one per core, with no extra threading capability.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Core Ultra 3 105UL has a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Atom x7809C has a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s. That is a 51.2 GB/s difference, more than double the Atom's total bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The Core Ultra 3 105UL has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Atom x7809C has 6 MB. The Core Ultra 3 105UL also has 112 KB of L1 per core versus 96 KB, and 2 MB of L2 per core versus 2 MB per module.

Q: Do both processors support the same PCIe generation?

A: No. The Core Ultra 3 105UL provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Atom x7809C provides PCIe Gen 3 with 9 CPU lanes. The Core Ultra 3 105UL also has integrated Arc Xe-LPG 48EU graphics, which the Atom x7809C lacks entirely.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 3 105UL is the stronger processor in almost every compute-heavy scenario. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench rendering tests, all single-thread tests, and the major math workloads. The 131.3% single-thread lead in Passmark is the single largest gap in the dataset, and the 72.2% floating point math advantage reinforces that this is not a close contest in general-purpose performance.

The Intel Atom x7809C is not without merit. Its wins in data compression, data encryption, and random string sorting are decisive, with margins between 15.7% and 28.9%. Those three workloads suggest a specialized data-handling capability that the Core Ultra 3 105UL cannot match. The Atom also posts a respectable overall average score of 12607, only 3.6% behind the Core Ultra 3 105UL, and sits in the 67th percentile, just one point below the Core Ultra 3 105UL's 68th percentile.

For general desktop use, rendering, software development, or any workload that benefits from high single-thread speed and large memory bandwidth, the Core Ultra 3 105UL is the clear choice. Its 10 MB L3 cache, dual-channel 89.6 GB/s memory, and 4.20 GHz boost clock provide the resources that the benchmark results show are decisive. The integrated Arc Xe-LPG graphics also mean the Core Ultra 3 105UL can operate without a discrete GPU, which the Atom x7809C cannot do.

For deployments focused on data compression, encryption, or string processing, the Atom x7809C offers a compelling alternative. Its wins in those specific Passmark tests come with a lower power envelope, 25 W TDP versus 15 W for the Core Ultra 3 105UL, so the Atom actually draws more power in this comparison. The Atom's single-channel memory and smaller L3 cache do not hinder its data-oriented wins, but they do cap its potential in other areas.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Core Ultra 3 105UL has 8 cores and 10 threads, while the Atom x7809C has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 1.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.20 GHz versus 3.60 GHz. TDP is 15 W for the Core Ultra 3 105UL and 25 W for the Atom x7809C.

The process nodes differ: 7 nm for the Core Ultra 3 105UL versus 10 nm for the Atom x7809C. Cache configurations are distinct, with the Core Ultra 3 105UL offering 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 10 MB shared L3, versus the Atom x7809C's 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per module, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support shows the Core Ultra 3 105UL with DDR5 on a dual-channel bus at 89.6 GB/s, while the Atom x7809C supports DDR4 and DDR5 on a single-channel bus at 38.4 GB/s.

PCIe capability differs as well: Gen 4 with 8 lanes for the Core Ultra 3 105UL, Gen 3 with 9 lanes for the Atom x7809C. The Core Ultra 3 105UL includes Arc Xe-LPG 48EU integrated graphics, while the Atom x7809C has none. Sockets are incompatible, Intel Socket 1851 versus Intel BGA 1264. The market segments also differ, Desktop for the Core Ultra 3 105UL and Mobile for the Atom x7809C. Both were released on the same date, and both have an active production status.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 3 105UL wins in rendering, single-threaded applications, mathematics, and general compute. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 8742 versus 7997 makes it the better choice for 3D rendering and video encoding. The 131.3% Passmark single-thread lead means it will respond faster in everyday desktop tasks, web browsing, and office applications. The 72.2% floating point math advantage suits scientific computing and financial modeling. The 42.2% integer math lead helps with general programming and data processing.

The Atom x7809C wins specifically in data compression, data encryption, and random string sorting. The 28.9% random string sorting advantage suggests strengths in text processing and log analysis. The 18.9% data encryption lead points to cryptographic workloads. The 15.7% data compression win covers archive creation and decompression tasks. These three wins cluster around data manipulation patterns, so the Atom x7809C may be the better fit for dedicated data-processing appliances.

The overall benchmark average favors the Core Ultra 3 105UL at 13061 versus 12607, and it wins the majority of tests. But the Atom x7809C's three wins are not marginal; they are decisive. For any system where data compression, encryption, or string sorting is the primary task, the Atom x7809C's architecture delivers measurably better results. For everything else, the Core Ultra 3 105UL is the superior choice based on the recorded data.