Atom N2800 vs Xeon E5-2680
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2680 and Atom N2800 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1093 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.82 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | Xeon (Desktop) | Intel Atom |
| Power efficiency | 4.31 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) | Cedarview-M (2011−2012) |
| Release date | 6 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 December 2011 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,723 | $47 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2680 and Atom N2800 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 1.86 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 1.87 GHz |
| Bus rate | 8 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 20 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 435 mm2 | 66 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 85 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,270 million | 176 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2680 and Atom N2800 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 | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | FCBGA559 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 6.5 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 and Atom N2800. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | Intel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2680 and Atom N2800 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2680 and Atom N2800 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | - |
| VT-x | + | - |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2680 and Atom N2800. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 384 GB | 4.88 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 1 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3650 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 and Atom N2800.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
TrueCrypt AES
TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 6 March 2012 | 1 December 2011 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 2 |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 6 Watt |
Xeon E5-2680 has an age advantage of 3 months, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Atom N2800, on the other hand, has 2066.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon E5-2680 and Atom N2800. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2680 is a server/workstation processor while Atom N2800 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 and Atom N2800, 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.
