Atom x7809C vs Ryzen 3 PRO 1300
Aggregate performance score
Atom x7809C outperforms Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 by a substantial 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1535 | 1318 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 31.91 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 3 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.66 | 9.05 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Amston Lake (2024) |
| Release date | 29 June 2017 (8 years ago) | 8 April 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $117 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 and Atom x7809C 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 35 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 2 MB (per module) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 and Atom x7809C 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | Intel BGA 1264 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 25 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 and Atom x7809C. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 and Atom x7809C are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 and Atom x7809C. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR4, DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 and Atom x7809C.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 9 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.08 | 5.34 |
| Recency | 29 June 2017 | 8 April 2024 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 8 |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 25 Watt |
Atom x7809C has a 30.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 160% lower power consumption.
The Intel Atom x7809C is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 in performance tests.
Be aware that Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 is a server/workstation processor while Atom x7809C is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
