Xeon Bronze 3508U vs Atom N2650
Primary details
Comparing Atom N2650 and Xeon Bronze 3508U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | Intel Atom | no data |
| Architecture codename | Cedarview-M (2011−2012) | no data |
| Release date | 5 January 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
Detailed specifications
Atom N2650 and Xeon Bronze 3508U 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.73 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L3 cache | no data | 22.5 MB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 83 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Atom N2650 and Xeon Bronze 3508U 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.
| Socket | no data | FCLGA4677 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 3,6 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom N2650 and Xeon Bronze 3508U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| TSX | - | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Atom N2650 and Xeon Bronze 3508U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® SPS |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom N2650 and Xeon Bronze 3508U are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom N2650 and Xeon Bronze 3508U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 @ 4400 MT/s (1 DPC &2DPC) |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3600 (400 MHz) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom N2650 and Xeon Bronze 3508U.
| PCIe version | no data | 4 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 80 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 5 January 2012 | 1 October 2023 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 8 |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 3 Watt | 125 Watt |
Atom N2650 has 4066.7% lower power consumption.
Xeon Bronze 3508U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 years, and 300% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
We couldn't decide between Atom N2650 and Xeon Bronze 3508U. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Atom N2650 is a notebook processor while Xeon Bronze 3508U is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom N2650 and Xeon Bronze 3508U, 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.
