AMD A10-5800B vs Intel Xeon X3440 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two processors into distinct roles. The Intel Xeon X3440 is a legacy server/workstation part with multithreaded stamina, while the AMD A10-5800B is a desktop part with higher clocks and integrated graphics. Neither chip is a modern champion, but the choice depends on workload priorities.

For users running heavily threaded applications, the Xeon X3440 is the stronger pick. Its benchmark scores in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests are consistently higher than those of the A10-5800B, which has no recorded scores in those same tests. The Xeon’s 8 threads versus 4 threads in the A10 is the primary driver of this advantage. If the workload is single-threaded, the A10-5800B wins based on its higher base and boost clocks, though its only single-core recorded score is from Geekbench, not Cinebench.

The A10-5800B is the better choice for a basic desktop build where integrated graphics are needed. It includes a Radeon HD 7660D, while the Xeon X3440 has no integrated graphics at all. That means the Xeon requires a discrete GPU, adding cost and complexity. The A10 also has a notable memory bandwidth advantage, with 29.9 GB/s versus 21.3 GB/s for the Xeon, which can help in memory-sensitive tasks.

The percentile data shows both chips are near the bottom of the overall database. The Xeon sits at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, while the A10 sits at the 21st percentile. Their average benchmark scores are close: 815 for the Xeon and 794 for the A10. The nearest rivals confirm this clustering. The Xeon’s closest competitor, the Intel Core i5-L16G7, scores 816, a delta of -0.1%. The A10’s closest rival, the AMD A6-9400, also scores 794, a delta of -0.1%. These are not processors for demanding modern workloads; they are for specific legacy or low-cost scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is significant. The Intel Xeon X3440 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Lynnfield, built on a 45 nm process by Intel. It features 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die. The AMD A10-5800B uses the Piledriver architecture, codenamed Trinity, built on a 32 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It packs 1,303 million transistors on a 246 mm² die. The A10 has a smaller die but a higher transistor count, reflecting a denser design.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads, enabling simultaneous multithreading. The A10 has 4 cores and 4 threads, no hyperthreading equivalent. This explains the Xeon’s multicore benchmark advantage. Clock speeds favor the A10: a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, versus 2.53 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost for the Xeon. That is a large clock gap, over 1 GHz in both base and boost.

Cache layouts are also distinct. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The A10 has 192 KB of L1 cache total, 4 MB of shared L2 cache, and no L3 cache at all. The Xeon’s larger L3 cache is a major advantage for workloads that benefit from shared data across cores. The A10’s lack of L3 is a structural limitation.

Memory support shows both use DDR3 and dual-channel buses. The Xeon’s memory bandwidth is 21.3 GB/s, while the A10’s is 29.9 GB/s, a 40% advantage for AMD. The Xeon supports ECC memory, the A10 does not. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the A10 uses PCIe Gen 2 with no lane count specified. The Xeon has no integrated graphics; the A10 has Radeon HD 7660D.

The sockets are incompatible. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1156, the A10 uses AMD Socket FM2. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon was released on 2009-09-07 with a launch MSRP of $215. The A10 was released on 2012-10-01, with no launch MSRP recorded. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, so direct comparisons rely on the individually recorded tests. The Xeon X3440 has five Cinebench scores. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 238. In Cinebench R20 multicore, it scores 994, and in Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 140. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 2368, and in Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 334. The A10-5800B has no Cinebench scores in the database. It only has Geekbench results: 1128 for multicore and 459 for single-core.

This makes cross-benchmark comparison difficult, but the data suggests a clear trend. The Xeon’s multicore Cinebench scores are strong for its era, especially the R23 multicore score of 2368. The A10’s Geekbench multicore score of 1128 is not directly comparable to Cinebench, but its single-core Geekbench score of 459 is higher than the Xeon’s Cinebench single-core scores when normalized per test. The Xeon’s Cinebench R23 single-core score of 334 is low, reflecting its older architecture and lower clocks.

The nearest rivals provide context. The Xeon’s average benchmark score is 815, with its closest rival being the Intel Core i5-L16G7 at 816, a delta of -0.1%. The A10’s average is 794, with its closest rival being the AMD A6-9400 at 794, a delta of -0.1%. Both chips are within a rounding error of their nearest competitors. The Xeon’s rivals include the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 at 813 and the Intel Core i7-5550U at 813. The A10’s rivals include the AMD A10-7850K at 796 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G at 797.

The wins are split by test type. The Xeon wins in multicore rendering workloads, as evidenced by its Cinebench scores. The A10 wins in single-core Geekbench performance, where its 459 score reflects its high clock speed. The A10 also wins in memory bandwidth and integrated graphics, though those are not benchmark scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Xeon X3440 has 8 threads, while the AMD A10-5800B has 4 threads. This is due to the Xeon’s support for simultaneous multithreading on its 4 cores.

Q: Does the AMD A10-5800B have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the A10-5800B includes a Radeon HD 7660D. The Intel Xeon X3440 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD A10-5800B has 29.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon X3440 has 21.3 GB/s. Both use dual-channel DDR3.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon X3440 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD A10-5800B has no L3 cache, only 4 MB of shared L2 cache.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Xeon X3440 has an average benchmark score of 815, placing it at the 22nd percentile. The AMD A10-5800B has an average score of 794, placing it at the 21st percentile.

Q: Does the Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon X3440 supports ECC memory. The AMD A10-5800B does not support ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon X3440 wins in multithreaded compute tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 2368 is a strong indicator of sustained performance in rendering or simulation workloads. The 8 threads allow it to handle parallel tasks more efficiently than the A10’s 4 threads. The 8 MB of shared L3 cache also helps in workloads where cores frequently share data, reducing memory latency. This makes the Xeon a viable option for legacy server or workstation builds where ECC memory is required and multithreaded throughput is the priority.

The AMD A10-5800B wins in single-threaded and everyday desktop tasks. Its boost clock of 4.20 GHz is significantly higher than the Xeon’s 2.93 GHz, which directly benefits single-threaded performance. Its Geekbench single-core score of 459 reflects this advantage. The A10 also wins in memory bandwidth, with 29.9 GB/s, which helps in memory-intensive applications like integrated graphics rendering or data streaming. The integrated Radeon HD 7660D is a decisive factor for basic desktop use, eliminating the need for a separate graphics card.

In terms of physical and platform characteristics, the A10 is more modern. It was released in 2012 versus 2009 for the Xeon. It uses a smaller 32 nm process, resulting in a smaller die size of 246 mm² versus 296 mm² for the Xeon. The A10 also has a higher transistor count of 1,303 million versus 774 million for the Xeon. However, the Xeon’s TDP is lower at 95 watts versus 100 watts for the A10, making it slightly more power-efficient despite its older process.

The Xeon is the pick for a workstation or server role, especially where ECC memory is non-negotiable. The A10 is the pick for a budget desktop or media center, where integrated graphics and high clocks matter more than raw multithreaded scores. The percentile data shows both are near the bottom of the database, so neither should be chosen for modern high-performance computing. The decision hinges on whether the workload is parallel or single-threaded, and whether a discrete GPU is acceptable. The Xeon’s 8 threads and larger cache serve multithreaded tasks; the A10’s higher clocks and integrated graphics serve general desktop use.