Intel Atom x7835RE vs Intel Xeon Gold 6338N Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits decisively along workload type and scale. The Intel Xeon Gold 6338N wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, covering both multi-core and single-core tests across R15, R20, and R23. Its multi-core margins are massive, ranging from 491.2% to 492% higher than the Atom x7835RE. Single-core deltas are similarly lopsided, between 491.3% and 498.8% in favor of the Xeon. This indicates the Xeon Gold 6338N is built for sustained, high-throughput compute where thread count and memory bandwidth dominate.

The Intel Atom x7835RE, by contrast, wins zero head-to-head comparisons. However, its benchmark profile includes PassMark tests absent from the Xeon's record, and those results show a different strength: efficiency in compact, low-power environments. The Atom's PassMark integer math score of 26623, floating point math of 16236, and data compression of 76736 demonstrate respectable throughput for an 8-thread part. Its single-thread PassMark score of 1599 aligns with its 3.60 GHz boost clock, suggesting responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks despite the Cinebench single-core deficit.

The percentile rankings place both parts near each other globally: the Xeon Gold 6338N sits at the 66th percentile of all CPUs, while the Atom x7835RE sits at the 65th. This is a striking result given the raw score disparity. The explanation lies in the benchmark distribution: the Atom's PassMark results, especially data compression at 76736 and integer math at 26623, pull its average benchmark score up to 9430, close to the Xeon's 10347 average. The Xeon's average is buoyed by Cinebench multi-core scores, but the Atom's specialized workloads keep it competitive in the aggregate metric.

For use-case segmentation, the Xeon Gold 6338N is the clear winner in rendering, simulation, and any workload that scales across 64 threads. The Atom x7835RE is not a competitor in those domains. Instead, the Atom's profile points to embedded or mobile deployments where the 12 W TDP and integrated UHD Graphics 32EU matter more than raw Cinebench output. Its PassMark data compression score suggests utility in storage or networking appliances where compression and integer operations are frequent.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N is the superior processor for compute-bound server and workstation tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35773 is roughly six times the Atom's 6051, a gap that no single-core advantage or PassMark specialty can bridge for general-purpose productivity. The Xeon's 32 cores and 64 threads, combined with 48 MB of shared L3 cache and eight-channel DDR4 memory bandwidth of 170.7 GB/s, make it appropriate for virtualization, scientific computing, and content creation.

The Intel Atom x7835RE should be selected for deployments where power draw and physical footprint are the primary constraints. Its 12 W TDP versus the Xeon's 185 W represents a 15.4x difference in rated thermal output, a factor that dominates in fanless or battery-powered designs. The Atom's single-channel memory and 9 PCIe Gen 3 lanes limit expansion, but its integrated graphics and mobile BGA 1264 socket suit compact industrial PCs or edge gateways. The PassMark data compression score of 76736 indicates the Atom can handle real-world compression tasks without external accelerators.

Neither processor is a value pick in the traditional sense because their markets barely overlap. The Xeon Gold 6338N sits at the 66th percentile with an average benchmark score of 10347, placing it among capable server chips. The Atom x7835RE, despite its lower absolute scores, achieves a 65th percentile ranking due to its PassMark strengths, meaning it outperforms a surprising number of mainstream desktop CPUs in specific workloads. For a developer targeting low-power edge compute with occasional compression duties, the Atom is defensible. For anything requiring heavy multi-threaded rendering, the Xeon is the only option between these two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six Cinebench comparisons provide a complete picture of the performance gap. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon Gold 6338N scores 3605 against the Atom's 609, a 492% advantage. The R15 single-core test shows 509 versus 85, a 498.8% lead. These early results set the tone for the newer benchmark versions.

Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 15024 for the Xeon, 2541 for the Atom, a 491.3% delta. The R20 single-core result is 2121 against 358, a 492.5% margin. The R23 multi-core test, often used for modern CPU comparisons, records 35773 for the Xeon and 6051 for the Atom, another 491.2% gap. The R23 single-core score of 5050 versus 854 yields a 491.3% difference.

The consistency of these deltas, all hovering between 491% and 499%, is remarkable. It suggests the performance ratio between these two processors is stable across benchmark generations and core counts. The Xeon's advantage does not shrink in newer tests, nor does it grow in older ones. This uniformity points to a fundamental architectural difference rather than a benchmark-specific quirk.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context for each part's standing. The Xeon Gold 6338N's closest competitor in the database is the Intel Xeon W-3175X, with an average score of 10369 against the Xeon's 10347, a negligible 0.2% deficit. The Xeon Gold 6338N also edges out the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U by 0.5% and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 by 1.1%, while trailing the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 by 0.3%. These sub-1% deltas indicate the Xeon Gold 6338N is precisely positioned among mid-tier server processors.

The Atom x7835RE's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 with an average score of 9406, which the Atom beats by 0.3%. The Atom also leads the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX by 0.9%, but trails the Intel Core i7-7700HQ by 0.7% and the AMD EPYC 7402P by 1%. That an 8-core Atom can trade places with a 28-core Xeon Platinum and a 24-core Threadripper in average benchmark score confirms its PassMark performance in specific tests.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6338N. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 35773 versus the Atom x7835RE's 6051, a 491.2% advantage. The same pattern holds in R20 (15024 versus 2541) and R15 (3605 versus 609).

Q: Does the Atom x7835RE win any benchmark?

A: No. In the six recorded head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, the Xeon Gold 6338N wins all of them. The Atom's PassMark results are not directly compared against the Xeon, but its average benchmark score of 9430 is lower than the Xeon's 10347.

Q: How do these processors rank among all CPUs?

A: The Xeon Gold 6338N sits at the 66th percentile, while the Atom x7835RE sits at the 65th. Despite the large Cinebench gap, their percentile ranks are nearly identical because the Atom's PassMark scores, particularly data compression at 76736, boost its average.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The Xeon Gold 6338N has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Atom x7835RE has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The Xeon also has a larger L3 cache at 48 MB shared versus the Atom's 6 MB shared.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon Gold 6338N supports ECC memory and uses eight-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 170.7 GB/s. The Atom x7835RE does not support ECC and uses single-channel DDR4 or DDR5 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Xeon Gold 6338N has a TDP of 185 W, while the Atom x7835RE has a TDP of 12 W. This makes the Atom suitable for power-constrained environments, though the Xeon's TDP is typical for a server processor with 32 cores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel lineages with distinct design goals. The Xeon Gold 6338N uses the Ice Lake-SP architecture on a 10 nm process, released in April 2021. It fits the Intel Socket 4189 and targets the server and workstation segment. The Atom x7835RE uses the Amston Lake architecture, also on a 10 nm process, but released in April 2024. It uses the Intel BGA 1264 socket and targets mobile devices.

Core organization differs substantially. The Xeon Gold 6338N packs 32 cores with 64 threads, each core having 64 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache, plus a shared 48 MB L3 cache. The Atom x7835RE has 8 cores and 8 threads, with 96 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per module, plus a shared 6 MB L3 cache. The Atom's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches reflect its Gracemont architecture, which favors efficiency cores with denser cache hierarchies.

Memory subsystems are worlds apart. The Xeon supports eight-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 170.7 GB/s and ECC memory. The Atom supports single-channel DDR4 or DDR5 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. PCIe connectivity also diverges: the Xeon provides 64 Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Atom provides 9 Gen 3 lanes. This makes the Xeon suitable for multi-GPU or high-speed storage arrays, whereas the Atom's lanes suffice for basic peripherals.

The Atom includes integrated UHD Graphics 32EU, a feature absent from the Xeon Gold 6338N. The Xeon compensates with its massive compute resources and server-grade reliability features. Clock speeds tell a nuanced story: the Xeon has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost of 3.50 GHz, while the Atom has a lower base of 1.30 GHz but a higher boost of 3.60 GHz. The Atom's boost clock is higher, but its Cinebench single-core scores (854 in R23) remain far below the Xeon's 5050, indicating that sustained single-thread performance is not comparable.

The production status for both is Active, but their market segments are distinct. The Xeon Gold 6338N is explicitly a server and workstation part, while the Atom x7835RE is a mobile processor. The Atom has a launch MSRP of $127, though pricing analysis is outside scope. The architectural takeaways are clear: the Xeon maximizes parallel throughput with 64 threads, eight-channel memory, and a large L3 cache; the Atom maximizes power efficiency with a 12 W TDP, integrated graphics, and compact packaging, but at the cost of raw compute performance.