Intel Atom x7835RE vs Intel Xeon Gold 6346 Comparison

The Intel Xeon Gold 6346 is the decisive winner in every benchmark recorded, leaving the Intel Atom x7835RE with no head-to-head victories. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Xeon Gold 6346 outperforms the Atom by a consistent margin of approximately 80.9%, a gap that underscores the fundamental divide in their design targets. The data shows a complete sweep, with the Xeon Gold 6346 securing 6 wins and the Atom x7835RE securing 0.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the consistency of the performance gap. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon Gold 6346 scores 31,650 points, while the Atom x7835RE manages only 6,051 points. This translates to an 80.9% deficit for the Atom, a massive difference that reflects the Xeon’s superior core count and memory bandwidth. The single-core results tell a similar story: the Xeon Gold 6346 achieves 4,468 points in Cinebench R23 single-core versus the Atom’s 854 points, again an 80.9% difference, showing that the Xeon’s advantage is not just about parallel workloads but also raw per-thread performance.

The pattern holds across older Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon Gold 6346 scores 13,293 against the Atom’s 2,541, an 80.9% lead. The R20 single-core test shows the Xeon at 1,876 points versus the Atom’s 358 points. Even in Cinebench R15, the earliest test in the set, the Xeon Gold 6346 posts 3,190 multi-core and 450 single-core scores, while the Atom x7835RE trails with 609 and 85 respectively. The deltaPct of -80.9% is nearly identical across all tests, indicating a structural performance advantage rather than a workload-specific one.

This consistent margin means the Atom x7835RE is not competitive in any rendering or CPU-bound task that Cinebench measures. For context, the Atom’s average benchmark score of 9,430 places it near rivals like the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 (9,406, +0.3%) and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX (9,348, +0.9%), which are in a similar performance class. The Xeon Gold 6346, with an average score of 9,155, sits close to the Intel Core i7-1165G7 (9,235, -0.9%) and the Intel Core i5-10300H (9,243, -0.9%), showing that while the Xeon wins decisively against the Atom, its average score is lower than the Atom’s due to the limited benchmark set. This is a critical nuance: the Xeon’s average is dragged down by having only Cinebench scores, while the Atom includes Passmark results, which may not reflect the same workload intensity.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on the same 10 nm process node from Intel, but they diverge completely in architecture and purpose. The Intel Atom x7835RE uses the Amston Lake architecture with a codename of Amston Lake, categorized under the Atom (Gracemont) generation. It features 8 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 1.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The Xeon Gold 6346, in contrast, uses the Ice Lake architecture with a codename of Ice Lake-SP, part of the Xeon Gold (Ice Lake-SP) generation. It doubles the core count to 16 cores and quadruples the thread count to 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and the same boost clock of 3.60 GHz.

Cache configurations highlight different design philosophies. The Atom x7835RE has a per-core L1 cache of 96 KB, a 2 MB L2 cache per module, and a shared L3 cache of 6 MB. The Xeon Gold 6346 has a smaller per-core L1 cache of 64 KB but a larger per-core L2 cache of 1 MB, and a significantly larger shared L3 cache of 36 MB. This larger L3 cache on the Xeon is crucial for server workloads that benefit from more resident data. Memory support also differs sharply: the Atom supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a single-channel memory bus and a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Xeon supports only DDR4 but with an eight-channel memory bus and a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, over five times higher.

The Xeon Gold 6346 also supports ECC memory, which is absent on the Atom. PCIe capabilities are another major differentiator: the Atom offers Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon offers Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only), a massive expansion for expansion cards and storage. The Atom includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 32EU, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The sockets are incompatible: the Atom uses Intel BGA 1264, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4189.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: Both the Intel Atom x7835RE and the Intel Xeon Gold 6346 have the same boost clock speed of 3.60 GHz, according to the benchmark data.

Q: Does the Intel Atom x7835RE support ECC memory?

A: No, the Intel Atom x7835RE does not support ECC memory. In contrast, the Intel Xeon Gold 6346 does support ECC memory, making it suitable for error-correcting workloads.

Q: What is the difference in multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6346 scores 31,650 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Atom x7835RE scores 6,051 points. This gives the Xeon an 80.9% advantage over the Atom.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6346 has a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the Intel Atom x7835RE has a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Xeon’s bandwidth is over five times higher.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both the Intel Atom x7835RE and the Intel Xeon Gold 6346 are manufactured on Intel’s 10 nm process node, according to the data.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6346 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Atom x7835RE has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon has double the cores and quadruple the threads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Atom x7835RE | Intel Xeon Gold 6346 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 1.30 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| TDP | 12 W | 205 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1264 | Intel Socket 4189 |

| Architecture | Amston Lake | Ice Lake-SP |

| Generation | Atom (Gracemont) | Xeon Gold (Ice Lake-SP) |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per module) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Single-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 9 Lanes | Gen 4, 64 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 32EU | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2024-04-07 | 2021-04-05 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Gold 6346 wins in every measurable benchmark category, including multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests across R15, R20, and R23 versions. Its advantages are rooted in its architecture: 16 cores with 32 threads, a base clock of 3.10 GHz, a large 36 MB shared L3 cache, and eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. This makes it the clear choice for compute-intensive server or workstation tasks, such as rendering, scientific computing, or any workload that scales with core count and memory throughput. The Xeon’s support for ECC memory and 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes further reinforces its position as a platform for high-reliability and high-expansion systems.

The Intel Atom x7835RE, while losing all head-to-head comparisons, has its own domain of strength based on its specifications rather than benchmark wins. With a TDP of only 12 W compared to the Xeon’s 205 W, the Atom is designed for power-constrained mobile or embedded applications. Its integrated UHD Graphics 32EU provides a display output capability, which the Xeon lacks entirely. The Atom also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, offering flexibility in memory choice, though with a single-channel bus. Its smaller footprint, BGA socket, and active production status suggest a long-lived platform for fanless or low-power devices where the Xeon’s massive power draw and server socket are impractical.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon Gold 6346 is the superior processor for raw performance, winning all six Cinebench benchmarks with a consistent 80.9% margin over the Intel Atom x7835RE. If the workload demands maximum CPU throughput, multi-threading, or high memory bandwidth, the Xeon Gold 6346 is the only choice between the two. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, 36 MB L3 cache, and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth provide a massive computational advantage that the Atom cannot approach. The Xeon’s server-grade features, such as ECC memory and 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, make it suitable for data center or high-end workstation deployments.

However, the Intel Atom x7835RE should not be dismissed as a failure. Its 12 W TDP is a fraction of the Xeon’s 205 W, making it ideal for battery-powered or thermally constrained devices. The Atom’s integrated graphics and support for DDR5 memory add functionality that the Xeon does not offer. For edge computing, industrial PCs, or lightweight embedded systems where power efficiency and compactness are paramount, the Atom x7835RE is a viable, active part. The choice is not about which is “better” in absolute terms, but which aligns with the system’s primary constraints: performance versus power. The Xeon Gold 6346 wins on performance; the Atom x7835RE wins on efficiency.