i7-12700F vs Atom x5-Z8330
Aggregate performance score
Core i7-12700F outperforms Atom x5-Z8330 by a whopping 3685% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Atom x5-Z8330 and Core i7-12700F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2864 | 294 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 36.56 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | 5x Intel Atom | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 28.14 |
| Architecture codename | Airmont (2016) | Alder Lake-S (2022) |
| Release date | 8 February 2016 (8 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $386 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Atom x5-Z8330 and Core i7-12700F 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) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 1.44 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1.92 GHz | 4.9 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 80K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 25 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | no data | 215 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 90 °C | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Atom x5-Z8330 and Core i7-12700F 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 | no data | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Atom x5-Z8330 and Core i7-12700F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Atom x5-Z8330 and Core i7-12700F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Atom x5-Z8330 and Core i7-12700F 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 x5-Z8330 and Core i7-12700F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3L-RS 1600 | DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | 1 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Graphics max frequency | 500 MHz | no data |
| Execution Units | 12 | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Atom x5-Z8330 and Core i7-12700F integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 2 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Atom x5-Z8330 and Core i7-12700F.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 1 | 20 |
| USB revision | 3.0 | 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.
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.53 | 20.06 |
| Recency | 8 February 2016 | 4 January 2022 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 12 |
| Threads | 4 | 20 |
i7-12700F has a 3684.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and 200% more physical cores and 400% more threads.
The Core i7-12700F is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom x5-Z8330 in performance tests.
Be aware that Atom x5-Z8330 is a notebook processor while Core i7-12700F is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Atom x5-Z8330 and Core i7-12700F, 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.
