CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon Gold 6348 and Intel Atom x7809C represent two extreme poles of Intel’s server and edge computing lineup. The data reveals a stark performance chasm, yet both processors share the same overall percentile rank among all CPUs, which invites a closer look at what each chip is actually optimized to do. The Xeon is a 28-core, 56-thread Ice Lake-SP powerhouse, while the Atom is an 8-core, 8-thread Amston Lake part built for efficiency. The benchmark results are unambiguous in raw compute, but the architectural and platform differences suggest they are not competing for the same socket or workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite delivers a decisive, near-uniform victory for the Intel Xeon Gold 6348 across every test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 4441 against the Atom’s 805, a delta of 451.7%. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 626 versus 113, a 454% difference. This pattern holds in R20 and R23, where the Xeon’s multi-core scores of 18507 and 44066 dwarf the Atom’s 3358 and 7997, respectively. The deltas in R20 and R23 sit at 451.1% and 451%, meaning the performance ratio is almost perfectly consistent across all rendering workloads.

The single-core results are particularly telling. In R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 6221 while the Atom manages 1129, a 451% gap. This is not merely a core-count advantage; the Xeon’s per-thread performance is fundamentally superior. The Atom’s boost clock of 3.60 GHz is actually higher than the Xeon’s 3.50 GHz, yet the Xeon still wins single-threaded tests by a factor of roughly 5.5. This indicates that the Ice Lake-SP architecture, with its larger per-core L1 and L2 caches (64 KB and 1 MB per core, versus 96 KB L1 and 2 MB per module on the Atom) and 42 MB shared L3, delivers far greater instructions-per-clock than the Gracemont-based Atom.

The Atom does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Its only recorded wins are in PassMark tests that are not part of the head-to-head set, where it posts scores like 111525 in data compression and 28946 in integer math. However, these are standalone results; when placed directly against the Xeon’s Cinebench scores, the Atom’s numbers are not competitive. The data shows a 6-0 sweep for the Xeon, with every delta exceeding 451%. This consistency suggests that the Xeon’s advantage is architectural and not workload-specific, at least within the Cinebench rendering suite.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Xeon Gold 6348 in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 44066 versus the Atom’s 7997, which is a 451% advantage. The same pattern appears in R20 (18507 vs 3358) and R15 (4441 vs 805), with deltas around 451%.

Q: Does the Atom x7809C have any performance advantage in single-threaded tasks?

A: No. The Xeon wins all single-core Cinebench tests, including R23 single-core (6221 vs 1129) and R15 single-core (626 vs 113). Despite the Atom’s higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz, the Xeon’s 3.50 GHz still delivers roughly 5.5 times the single-thread performance.

Q: Are these two processors aimed at the same market segment?

A: No. The Xeon is marked for Server/Workstation, while the Atom is marked for Mobile. The Xeon uses an Intel Socket 4189, whereas the Atom uses a BGA 1264 socket, meaning they are not interchangeable in any system.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Xeon has a TDP of 235 watts, while the Atom has a TDP of 25 watts. This is a 210-watt gap, highlighting the Atom’s efficiency-focused design versus the Xeon’s raw throughput orientation.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The Xeon supports DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Atom supports both DDR4 and DDR5, but only with a single-channel bus, yielding 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the Atom does not.

Q: Which CPU has a higher release date?

A: The Xeon Gold 6348 was released on 2021-04-05, while the Atom x7809C was released on 2024-04-07. The Atom is a newer design by roughly three years.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Gold 6348 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, making it the clear choice for any compute-intensive workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering. Its 28 cores and 56 threads provide massive parallel throughput, and its 42 MB shared L3 cache helps with data reuse in large datasets. The eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth are designed for server workloads that demand high memory throughput, such as virtualization, database processing, and scientific computing. The Xeon’s 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only) also allow for extensive I/O expansion, which is critical for workstation and server configurations.

The Intel Atom x7809C, despite losing all head-to-head benchmarks, wins in the domain of power efficiency and physical integration. Its 25-watt TDP is less than one-tenth of the Xeon’s, making it suitable for fanless or passively cooled mobile systems. The single-channel memory bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth are modest, but the support for both DDR4 and DDR5 offers flexibility in embedded designs. The Atom’s 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only) are limited, but sufficient for lightweight edge controllers or network appliances. Its PassMark scores, such as 111525 in data compression and 17856 in floating point math, indicate it can handle specific data-centric tasks, but these are not compared against the Xeon in the head-to-head data.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification category. The Xeon has 28 cores and 56 threads, versus the Atom’s 8 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon’s base clock is 2.60 GHz with a boost of 3.50 GHz, while the Atom runs at 2.00 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. The TDP differential is massive: 235 watts for the Xeon versus 25 watts for the Atom. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 4189 for the Xeon, Intel BGA 1264 for the Atom. The memory support diverges completely, with the Xeon using eight-channel DDR4 at 204.8 GB/s, and the Atom using single-channel DDR4/DDR5 at 38.4 GB/s. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Atom does not. PCIe capabilities differ, with the Xeon offering 64 Gen 4 lanes versus the Atom’s 9 Gen 3 lanes. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Atom lists "N/A" for integrated graphics. The Xeon’s launch MSRP is null, while the Atom has a launch MSRP of $117.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is profound. The Xeon Gold 6348 is built on Ice Lake-SP architecture, manufactured on a 10 nm process by Intel. Its cache hierarchy is designed for high-core-count servers: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 42 MB shared L3. The Atom x7809C uses Amston Lake architecture with a Gracemont microarchitecture, also on a 10 nm process. However, its cache design is different: 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB per module for L2, and only 6 MB shared L3. The Atom’s per-module L2 arrangement suggests a different design philosophy focused on power efficiency rather than raw cache capacity. The Xeon’s generation is listed as "Xeon Gold (Ice Lake-SP)", whereas the Atom is "Atom (Gracemont)", reflecting their distinct lineage. The Xeon’s eight-channel memory controller is a server-grade feature, while the Atom’s single-channel controller is typical of low-power embedded parts. The Xeon also has a higher base clock, despite the Atom having a slightly higher boost clock, which indicates the Xeon can sustain higher all-core frequencies under load.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon Gold 6348 is the superior processor for any workload that requires compute throughput. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks by a margin of over 451%, and its 28-core, 56-thread configuration is built for server and workstation tasks that demand parallel processing. The Xeon’s 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth and 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes make it a platform for serious expansion and data movement. Anyone building a rendering node, a database server, or a virtualization host should choose the Xeon based on these benchmark results alone.

The Intel Atom x7809C, conversely, should be selected for scenarios where power consumption and physical footprint are the primary constraints. Its 25-watt TDP is a fraction of the Xeon’s 235-watt figure, and its BGA 1264 socket allows for compact, embedded designs. While it loses every Cinebench test, its PassMark results show competence in data compression and integer math, which may be relevant for edge computing or network appliances. The Atom’s support for both DDR4 and DDR5, along with its 3.60 GHz boost clock, makes it a flexible, low-power option. However, its 8 threads and 6 MB L3 cache limit it to light or single-purpose workloads. The choice comes down to raw performance versus energy efficiency, the Xeon is a powerhouse, and the Atom is a minimalist.