Xeon Gold 6530 vs Atom Z520

VS

Aggregate performance score

Atom Z520
2008
1 core / 2 threads, 2 Watt
0.08
Xeon Gold 6530
2023
32 cores / 64 threads, 270 Watt
41.26
+51475%

Xeon Gold 6530 outperforms Atom Z520 by a whopping 51475% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Atom Z520 and Xeon Gold 6530 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking338761
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data56.60
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesIntel Atomno data
Power efficiency3.7914.46
Architecture codenameSilverthorne (2008−2010)Emerald Rapids (2023)
Release date2 April 2008 (16 years ago)14 December 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$65$2,128

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Atom Z520 and Xeon Gold 6530 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 cores1 (Single-Core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads264
Base clock speed1.33 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed0.03 GHz4 GHz
Bus typeFSBno data
Bus rate533.33 MT/sno data
Multiplier10no data
L1 cache56 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache512 KB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB160 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size24.18 mm22x 763 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors47 Millionno data
64 bit support-+
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
VID voltage range0.75-1.1Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Atom Z520 and Xeon Gold 6530 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)2
SocketPBGA441FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)2 Watt270 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom Z520 and Xeon Gold 6530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching+no data
FSB parity-no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Atom Z520 and Xeon Gold 6530 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDB++
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom Z520 and Xeon Gold 6530 are enumerated here.

VT-d-+
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Atom Z520 and Xeon Gold 6530. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR5 @ 4800 MT/s (1 DPC)
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card-N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom Z520 and Xeon Gold 6530.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data80

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 Z520 0.08
Xeon Gold 6530 41.26
+51475%

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 Z520 122
Xeon Gold 6530 65533
+53616%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.08 41.26
Recency 2 April 2008 14 December 2023
Physical cores 1 32
Threads 2 64
Power consumption (TDP) 2 Watt 270 Watt

Atom Z520 has 13400% lower power consumption.

Xeon Gold 6530, on the other hand, has a 51475% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, and 3100% more physical cores and 3100% more threads.

The Xeon Gold 6530 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom Z520 in performance tests.

Be aware that Atom Z520 is a notebook processor while Xeon Gold 6530 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Atom Z520 and Xeon Gold 6530, 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 Z520
Atom Z520
Intel Xeon Gold 6530
Xeon Gold 6530

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.


2.6 27 votes

Rate Atom Z520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 2 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Atom Z520 or Xeon Gold 6530, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.