CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon W3550 and AMD A10-9700E are two very different processors that end up in a surprising dead heat in raw compute benchmarks. The Xeon W3550 is a legacy 2009 server/workstation part, while the A10-9700E is a 2017 desktop APU with integrated graphics. The data shows that in every single Cinebench test, the Xeon W3550 wins, but by margins of only 0.4% to 0.6%. This means the A10-9700E is effectively tied in CPU performance, making the choice come down entirely to platform features, power draw, and system role. The Xeon W3550 is for someone reusing an old workstation board who needs ECC memory and doesn't care about power consumption. The A10-9700E is for a modern, low-power build that needs an iGPU and DDR4 support, and where a 35W TDP is a priority.

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a clear picture: this is a statistical tie in multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. The Intel Xeon W3550 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, but the largest margin is a mere 0.6% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. If you are choosing strictly on compute performance, the Xeon W3550 is technically the faster chip, but the difference is so small that it would be imperceptible in real-world use.

However, the practical verdict is about platform fit. The Xeon W3550 is for a builder who needs a server-grade feature set: it requires Intel Socket 1366, supports DDR3 triple-channel memory, and includes ECC memory support. Its 130W TDP makes it a poor choice for a compact or power-efficient system. The AMD A10-9700E is for a builder who wants a modern AM4 platform, DDR4 memory, and a built-in Radeon R7 iGPU, all while sipping only 35W. The data indicates the A10-9700E is the better choice for an everyday desktop, media center, or office PC where the integrated graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU. The Xeon W3550 only makes sense if you already own a compatible 1366 motherboard and need ECC.

Architecture Differences

The core architectures could not be more different. The Intel Xeon W3550 is built on the 45 nm Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, and packs 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. It features 4 cores and 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, with a base clock of 3.07 GHz and a boost clock of 3.33 GHz. Its cache hierarchy is per-core: 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, plus a large 8 MB shared L3 cache. It uses triple-channel DDR3 memory and connects via PCIe Gen 2.

The AMD A10-9700E is a 28 nm Excavator part, codenamed Bristol Ridge, made by GlobalFoundries. It has 4 cores and only 4 threads, meaning no simultaneous multi-threading. It runs at a 3.00 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.50 GHz. Its cache layout is different: 320 KB L1 total and 2 MB L2 total, with no L3 cache at all. It uses dual-channel DDR4 memory with a 38.4 GB/s bandwidth rating, and its CPU provides PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes. The A10-9700E integrates a Radeon R7 graphics core, something the Xeon W3550 lacks entirely.

The transistor counts tell the story of process evolution. The AMD chip has 3,100 million transistors despite a smaller 250 mm² die, thanks to the denser 28 nm node. The Intel chip uses a much older, less dense process. This explains why the AMD chip achieves similar performance at a fraction of the power draw.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W3550 wins in every single benchmark in the data set, but only by a hair. Its largest victory is a 0.6% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (2778 vs 2762) and the same 0.6% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core (164 vs 163). These are negligible margins. The real wins for the Xeon W3550 are architectural: it supports ECC memory, which is a requirement for stable, error-corrected workstation or server memory. It also has 8 threads versus 4, which means it will handle heavily threaded workloads more gracefully, even if the Cinebench scores do not show a dramatic difference.

The A10-9700E wins on platform modernity and efficiency. It has a massive TDP advantage: 35W versus 130W for the Xeon. This makes it far easier to cool and power. It supports DDR4 memory and has PCIe Gen 3, which are both modern standards. The integrated Radeon R7 graphics mean this single chip can power a full desktop system without a discrete GPU. The data shows the A10-9700E is the better pick for a low-power, all-in-one build, while the Xeon W3550 is the better pick for a legacy workstation that needs ECC.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon W3550 wins every multi-core test, but by tiny margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 279 versus 278 for the AMD A10-9700E. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2778 versus 2762, a 0.6% lead.

Q: Does the AMD A10-9700E have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the A10-9700E includes a Radeon R7 integrated GPU. The Intel Xeon W3550 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete video card.

Q: Can either processor use ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon W3550 supports ECC memory. The AMD A10-9700E does not support ECC.

Q: Which processor draws less power?

A: The AMD A10-9700E has a 35W TDP, while the Intel Xeon W3550 has a 130W TDP. The AMD chip is dramatically more power-efficient.

Q: Do these processors use the same memory type?

A: No. The Intel Xeon W3550 uses triple-channel DDR3, while the AMD A10-9700E uses dual-channel DDR4 with a 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Q: How do these chips compare to their closest rivals?

A: The Xeon W3550 has an average benchmark score of 956, tied with the AMD Athlon X4 870K (0% delta). The A10-9700E has an average score of 951, which is 0.2% behind the Intel Core i7-5500U and 0.4% behind the Intel Xeon W3570.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a remarkably consistent pattern across all five Cinebench tests. The Intel Xeon W3550 wins all five, but the margins are so small that they fall within run-to-run variance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 279 against the AMD's 278, a 0.4% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1166 against 1160, a 0.5% delta. The single-core tests tell the same story: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon leads 164 to 163, a 0.6% delta.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon scores 2778 and the AMD scores 2762, a 0.6% delta. The final test, Cinebench R23 single-core, shows the Xeon at 392 and the AMD at 390, a 0.5% delta. The consistent conclusion is that the Xeon W3550 is marginally faster in every workload, but the 4-thread deficit of the AMD chip does not translate into a meaningful performance penalty in these tests. The Xeon's 8 threads help it edge ahead, but the AMD's higher 3.50 GHz boost clock helps it stay close. The average benchmark scores confirm this: the Xeon W3550 sits at 956, while the A10-9700E sits at 951, a difference of only 5 points.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every hardware specification except for core count. The Intel Xeon W3550 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD A10-9700E has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon runs at a 3.07 GHz base clock and 3.33 GHz boost, while the AMD runs at 3.00 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The TDP difference is massive: 130W for Intel versus 35W for AMD.

The socket and platform are completely different. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, while the AMD uses AMD Socket AM4. Memory support diverges sharply: the Xeon uses triple-channel DDR3, while the AMD uses dual-channel DDR4 with a 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the AMD. The PCIe generation differs too: the Xeon has PCIe Gen 2, while the AMD has PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes.

The cache configurations are not comparable. The Xeon has a per-core design: 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, plus 8 MB shared L3. The AMD has a flat design: 320 KB L1 total and 2 MB L2 total, with no L3. The integrated graphics situation is a major differentiator: the AMD has a Radeon R7 iGPU, while the Intel has none. The process nodes are from different eras: 45 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for AMD. The Intel part is end-of-life, while the AMD part is listed as active production. The Xeon was released in 2009, and the AMD was released in 2017. The Xeon has 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die, while the AMD has 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die.