Atom x5-E8000 vs i3-550
Aggregate performance score
Core i3-550 outperforms Atom x5-E8000 by an impressive 66% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i3-550 and Atom x5-E8000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2462 | 2804 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.12 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | no data | 5x Intel Atom |
| Power efficiency | 1.31 | 11.55 |
| Architecture codename | Clarkdale (2010−2011) | Cherry Trail (2015−2016) |
| Release date | 30 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 8 February 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $101 | $39 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i3-550 and Atom x5-E8000 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 1.04 GHz |
| Bus rate | 2.5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 10 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 81 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 73 °C | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 382 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i3-550 and Atom x5-E8000 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA1156 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-550 and Atom x5-E8000. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
Security technologies
Core i3-550 and Atom x5-E8000 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-550 and Atom x5-E8000 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-550 and Atom x5-E8000. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 16.38 GB | 8 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics for Previous Generation Intel Processors | Intel HD Graphics (Cherry Trail) (320 MHz) |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i3-550 and Atom x5-E8000 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-550 and Atom x5-E8000.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 4 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.01 | 0.61 |
| Recency | 30 May 2010 | 8 February 2016 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 73 Watt | 5 Watt |
i3-550 has a 65.6% higher aggregate performance score.
Atom x5-E8000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, 100% more physical cores, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 1360% lower power consumption.
The Core i3-550 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom x5-E8000 in performance tests.
Note that Core i3-550 is a desktop processor while Atom x5-E8000 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-550 and Atom x5-E8000, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
