Atom x5-E8000 vs Core i7-4600M

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 x5-E8000 vs Core i7-4600M 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 x5-E8000 vs Core i7-4600M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Atom x5-E8000

2016

Why buy it

✅+0.5% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 5W instead of 512W, a 507W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $18 MSRP, while Core i7-4600M mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Core i7-4600M

2013

Why buy it

✅300% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,204 vs 3,219).
❌10140% higher power demand at 512W vs 5W.

Quick Answers

So, is Atom x5-E8000 better than Core i7-4600M?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Core i7-4600M is ahead with a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Atom x5-E8000 pulls ahead with 0.5% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Atom x5-E8000 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.5% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Atom x5-E8000 is the better buy right now. Atom x5-E8000 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $18 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.5% better PassMark. The compromise is that Core i7-4600M is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 1.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (178.8 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Atom x5-E8000 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2016 vs 2013) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Atom x5-E8000 vs Core i7-4600M Technical Specifications

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

Atom x5-E8000

The Atom x5-E8000 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 8 February 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Cherry Trail (2015−2016) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Max frequency: 1.04 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 5 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,219 points. Launch price was $39.

Core i7-4600M

The Core i7-4600M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 September 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 37 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,204 points. Launch price was $346.

⚡

Processing Power

The Atom x5-E8000 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, while the Core i7-4600M offers 2 cores / 4 threads — the Atom x5-E8000 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 1.04 GHz on the Atom x5-E8000 versus 3.6 GHz on the Core i7-4600M — a 110.3% clock advantage for the Core i7-4600M. The Atom x5-E8000 uses the Cherry Trail (2015−2016) architecture (14 nm), while the Core i7-4600M uses Haswell (2013−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Atom x5-E8000 scores 3,219 against the Core i7-4600M's 3,204 — a 0.5% lead for the Atom x5-E8000. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Atom x5-E8000 vs 4 MB (total) on the Core i7-4600M.

Feature	Atom x5-E8000	Core i7-4600M
Cores / Threads	4 / 4+100%	2 / 4
Boost Clock	1.04 GHz	3.6 GHz+246%
Base Clock	—	2.9 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	4 MB (total)
L2 Cache	2 MB	256K (per core)+12700%
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Cherry Trail (2015−2016)	Haswell (2013−2015)
PassMark	3,219	3,204
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	656
Geekbench 6 Single	—	1,025
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	2,132

🧠

Memory & Platform

Both support up to DDR3L-1600 memory speed. The Core i7-4600M supports up to 32 GB of RAM compared to 8 GB — 300% more capacity for professional workloads. Both feature 2-channel memory with ECC support. PCIe lanes: 4 (Atom x5-E8000) vs 16 (Core i7-4600M) — the Core i7-4600M offers 12 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Intel FCBGA1170 (Atom x5-E8000) and Intel HM86,Intel HM87,Intel QM87 (Core i7-4600M).

Feature	Atom x5-E8000	Core i7-4600M
Socket	—	PGA946
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	DDR3L 1600 MHz
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	32 GB+300%
RAM Channels	2	2
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	4	16+300%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Atom x5-E8000) / true (Core i7-4600M). Both include integrated graphics — Intel HD Graphics (Braswell) (Atom x5-E8000) and Intel HD Graphics 4600 (Core i7-4600M) — useful as a fallback for troubleshooting or display output without a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-4600M targets Mobile.