CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon W3570 and AMD A10-9700E are two very different processors that end up in a surprisingly close fight. The Xeon W3570 is a 2009-era server/workstation part built on 45nm Nehalem architecture, while the A10-9700E is a 2017 desktop APU on 28nm Excavator. Despite the eight-year gap, their benchmark scores are nearly identical, making this a comparison about platform features, power efficiency, and ecosystem rather than raw speed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W3570 has 8 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading, while the AMD A10-9700E has only 4 threads. This gives the Xeon a theoretical advantage in heavily threaded workloads, though the benchmark data shows the real-world difference is minimal.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD A10-9700E has a 35W TDP, while the Intel Xeon W3570 has a 130W TDP. This is a massive difference, making the AMD part dramatically more efficient for the same level of performance.

Q: Does the AMD part have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the A10-9700E includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon W3570 has no integrated graphics at all, requiring a separate discrete GPU.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon W3570 supports ECC memory, while the AMD A10-9700E does not. This makes the Xeon more suitable for error-sensitive workstation or server tasks.

Q: How do their Cinebench R23 multi-core scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon W3570 scores 2776, while the AMD A10-9700E scores 2762. The Xeon wins by 0.5%, which is essentially a statistical tie given the margin of error.

Q: Which processor is still in production?

A: The AMD A10-9700E is listed as "Active" in production status, while the Intel Xeon W3570 is "End-of-life". This means the AMD part is still available for new builds.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two CPUs is enormous. The Intel Xeon W3570 uses the Nehalem architecture, specifically the Bloomfield codename, built on a 45nm process by Intel. It packs 731 million transistors into a 263 mm² die. The AMD A10-9700E uses the Excavator architecture with the Bristol Ridge codename, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 28nm process. AMD's chip contains 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die, meaning it crams over four times as many transistors into a slightly smaller area.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Xeon W3570 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a substantial 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The A10-9700E has 320 KB of total L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. The Xeon's large shared L3 cache gives it a distinct advantage in workloads that benefit from fast data reuse across cores.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The Xeon W3570 supports DDR3 memory with a triple-channel memory bus, while the A10-9700E supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and a specified memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the AMD part lacks. In terms of PCIe, the Xeon has Gen 2 support, while the A10-9700E has Gen 3 with 8 lanes available from the CPU.

The Xeon W3570 is a server/workstation part with 4 cores and 8 threads, while the A10-9700E is a desktop part with 4 cores and 4 threads. The A10's integrated Radeon R7 graphics is a feature the Xeon simply cannot offer. The Xeon was released in March 2009, while the A10 arrived in July 2017.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent across all five Cinebench tests, with the Intel Xeon W3570 winning every single test by a tiny margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 279 against the A10's 278, a 0.4% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows 1165 versus 1160, again a 0.4% win for Intel.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 164 versus 163, a 0.6% edge. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 392 versus 390, a 0.5% win. The R23 multi-core test completes the sweep with 2776 versus 2762, a 0.5% advantage.

These deltas are so small they fall within typical run-to-run variance. The data indicates that in purely CPU-bound rendering tasks, these processors are functionally equivalent. The Xeon's 8 threads do not translate into a meaningful advantage over the A10's 4 threads in these workloads, likely because the older Nehalem architecture's per-core efficiency cannot overcome the newer Excavator design's IPC improvements.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the Xeon W3570 averages 955, while the A10-9700E averages 951. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Celeron N5105 at 955 (0% delta), the Intel Xeon W3550 at 956 (-0.1%), and the AMD Athlon X4 870K at 956 (-0.1%). The A10's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-5500U at 953 (-0.2%), the Intel Xeon W3570 at 955 (-0.4%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U at 947 (0.4%). Both processors sit at the 25th percentile among all CPUs, placing them in the entry-level performance tier.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: choose the AMD A10-9700E for any new build or system that prioritizes power efficiency, modern platform features, or integrated graphics. Its 35W TDP versus the Xeon's 130W TDP means dramatically lower power bills and simpler cooling requirements. The DDR4 memory support and PCIe Gen 3 connectivity align with modern motherboards and components.

Choose the Intel Xeon W3570 only if you have a specific need for ECC memory support or you are working with an existing Socket 1366 platform. Its 8 threads and triple-channel memory bus are legacy advantages that no longer translate into meaningful performance gains in modern benchmarks. The benchmark data shows it edges out the A10 in every test, but by margins of 0.4% to 0.6%, utterly negligible for real-world use.

The A10-9700E is still in active production, while the Xeon W3570 is end-of-life. For anyone building a system today, the AMD part is the only sensible choice. The Xeon makes sense only for upgrading an older workstation where ECC memory is a hard requirement and the platform is already in place.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon W3570 | AMD A10-9700E |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 4 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.47 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 130W | 35W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Process Node | 45 nm | 28 nm |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 320 KB |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon R7 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2009-03-29 | 2017-07-26 |

| Transistors | 731 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 263 mm² | 250 mm² |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A10-9700E wins decisively in power-constrained or compact builds. Its 35W TDP makes it suitable for small form factor systems or passively cooled setups where the Xeon's 130W TDP would be impractical. The integrated Radeon R7 graphics eliminates the need for a separate GPU in basic desktop tasks, media playback, or light gaming. The DDR4 memory support and PCIe Gen 3 connectivity mean it works with modern motherboards, storage, and peripherals.

The Intel Xeon W3570 wins in the narrow niche of legacy server/workstation duties where ECC memory is non-negotiable. Its triple-channel DDR3 memory bus provides high bandwidth for its era, and the 8 MB shared L3 cache helps with data-heavy workloads. The 8 threads give it a slight edge in multi-tasking scenarios, as reflected in its 5-0 sweep of the head-to-head benchmarks.

For everyday use, the A10-9700E is the practical choice. Its active production status means you can buy it new, and the AM4 platform offers a clear upgrade path. The Xeon W3570 is a historical artifact, interesting for collectors or those maintaining legacy systems, but not a sensible pick for new hardware. The benchmark data shows they perform within 0.6% of each other, so the decision comes down entirely to platform features, power efficiency, and availability.