Atom C3808 vs Core i7-3920XM

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Atom C3808 vs Core i7-3920XM FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Atom C3808 vs Core i7-3920XM: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Atom C3808

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Draws 25W instead of 55W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (5,671 vs 5,713).
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-3920XM can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Core i7-3920XM

2012

Why buy it

✅+0.7% higher PassMark.
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 12) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 4000, while Atom C3808 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Atom C3808 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 12 MB).
❌120% higher power demand at 55W vs 25W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom C3808 better than Core i7-3920XM?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Atom C3808 is ahead with a 5.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-3920XM pulls ahead with 0.7% better PassMark. Atom C3808 also has the bigger cache pool with 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-3920XM is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.7% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Atom C3808 still makes the most sense overall. Atom C3808 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.5% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Atom C3808 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2012) and 50% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 8 MB). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Atom C3808 vs Core i7-3920XM Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Atom C3808

The Atom C3808 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 15 August 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture. It features 12 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB. L2 cache: 12 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCBGA1310. Thermal design power (TDP): 25 Watt. Memory support: DDR4: 2133. Passmark benchmark score: 5,671 points. Launch price was $369.

Core i7-3920XM

The Core i7-3920XM is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 29 April 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA988. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,713 points. Launch price was $1,096.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom C3808 packs 12 cores / 12 threads, while the Core i7-3920XM offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the Atom C3808 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2 GHz on the Atom C3808 versus 3.8 GHz on the Core i7-3920XM — a 62.1% clock advantage for the Core i7-3920XM (base: 2 GHz vs 2.9 GHz). The Atom C3808 uses the Goldmont (2016−2017) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-3920XM uses Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom C3808 scores 5,671 against the Core i7-3920XM's 5,713 — a 0.7% lead for the Core i7-3920XM. L3 cache: 12 MB on the Atom C3808 vs 8 MB (total) on the Core i7-3920XM.

Feature	Atom C3808	Core i7-3920XM
Cores / Threads	12 / 12+200%	4 / 8
Boost Clock	2 GHz	3.8 GHz+90%
Base Clock	2 GHz	2.9 GHz+45%
L3 Cache	12 MB+50%	8 MB (total)
L2 Cache	12 MB	256K (per core)+2033%
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Goldmont (2016−2017)	Ivy Bridge (2012−2013)
PassMark	5,671	5,713
Geekbench 6 Single	—	686

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Atom C3808 uses the FCBGA1310 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Core i7-3920XM uses PGA988 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-2133 on the Atom C3808 versus DDR3-1600 on the Core i7-3920XM — the Atom C3808 supports 33.3% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Atom C3808 supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 12 (Atom C3808) vs 16 (Core i7-3920XM) — the Core i7-3920XM offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1310 (Atom C3808) and HM77,QM77 (Core i7-3920XM).

Feature	Atom C3808	Core i7-3920XM
Socket	FCBGA1310	PGA988
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2133+33%	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB+700%	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	Yes	No
PCIe Lanes	12	16+33%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom C3808) / VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i7-3920XM). The Core i7-3920XM includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 4000), while the Atom C3808 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-3920XM targets Extreme Performance Laptop. Direct competitor: Core i7-3920XM rivals A10-5750M.