Ryzen 7 8700F vs Atom C3758

VS

Aggregate performance score

Atom C3758
2017
8 cores / 8 threads, 25 Watt
2.90
Ryzen 7 8700F
2024
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
19.40
+569%

Ryzen 7 8700F outperforms Atom C3758 by a whopping 569% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Atom C3758 and Ryzen 7 8700F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1657289
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.5752.43
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Atomno data
Power efficiency10.9828.25
Architecture codenameGoldmont (2016−2017)Phoenix (2023−2024)
Release date15 August 2017 (7 years ago)1 April 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$193$270

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 7 8700F has 3239% better value for money than Atom C3758.

Detailed specifications

Atom C3758 and Ryzen 7 8700F 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads816
Base clock speed2.2 GHz4.1 GHz
Boost clock speed2.2 GHz5 GHz
Multiplier22no data
L1 cache448 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache16 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache16 MB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm4 nm
Die sizeno data178 mm2
Maximum core temperature82 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data25,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Atom C3758 and Ryzen 7 8700F 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCBGA1310AM5
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom C3758 and Ryzen 7 8700F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
QuickAssist+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Atom C3758 and Ryzen 7 8700F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

EDB+no data
Secure Boot+no data
Secure Key+no data
SGX-no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom C3758 and Ryzen 7 8700F are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom C3758 and Ryzen 7 8700F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4: 2400DDR5
Maximum memory size256 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth34.134 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom C3758 and Ryzen 7 8700F.

PCIe version34.0
PCI Express lanes1620
USB revision3no data
Total number of SATA ports16no data
Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports16no data
Number of USB ports8no data
Integrated LAN4x10/2.5/1 GBEno 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.


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.

Atom C3758 2.90
Ryzen 7 8700F 19.40
+569%

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.

Atom C3758 4614
Ryzen 7 8700F 30808
+568%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.90 19.40
Recency 15 August 2017 1 April 2024
Threads 8 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 65 Watt

Atom C3758 has 160% lower power consumption.

Ryzen 7 8700F, on the other hand, has a 569% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 100% more threads, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The Ryzen 7 8700F is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom C3758 in performance tests.

Be aware that Atom C3758 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 7 8700F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Atom C3758 and Ryzen 7 8700F, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Atom C3758
Atom C3758
AMD Ryzen 7 8700F
Ryzen 7 8700F

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 4 votes

Rate Atom C3758 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 201 vote

Rate Ryzen 7 8700F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Atom C3758 or Ryzen 7 8700F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.