AMD A6-9400 vs Intel Xeon X3440 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, narrow victory for the Intel Xeon X3440 across every Cinebench test in the comparison. The largest single-score gap appears in the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the Xeon scores 140 against the A6-9400's 136, a 2.9% difference. That is the biggest delta in the entire head-to-head set, yet it is still under three percentage points.

Multi-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon X3440 posts 238 versus 232 for the AMD A6-9400, a 2.6% lead. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows the Xeon at 994 against 969, again a 2.6% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core repeats the exact same relative gap: the Intel part scores 2368, the AMD part scores 2309, and the delta is 2.6%. The single-core R23 result is slightly tighter, with the Xeon at 334 and the A6-9400 at 326, a 2.5% advantage.

What stands out is how uniform the margins are. The Xeon X3440 wins all five recorded head-to-head tests, but no single benchmark shows a blowout. The average benchmark score for the Xeon is 815, while the A6-9400 averages 794. That puts the Intel part about 2.6% ahead in average score, which aligns almost exactly with the per-test deltas. In percentile terms, the Xeon X3440 sits at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, and the A6-9400 sits at the 21st. These are adjacent positions in the overall ranking, and the benchmark data reflects that proximity.

For context, the Xeon X3440's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i5-L16G7 at an average score of 816 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 at 813 (0.2% lower), and the Intel Xeon E5540 at 820 (0.7% higher). The A6-9400's nearest rivals include the AMD A10-5800B at 794 (0.1% higher), the AMD A10-7850K at 796 (0.3% higher), and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1606G at 797 (0.3% higher). Both processors cluster tightly with their peers; neither is an outlier in its own performance class.

The practical takeaway from the head-to-head numbers is that the two CPUs are effectively in the same performance tier for Cinebench workloads. The Xeon X3440's 5-0 sweep is real but small, and any workload that favors one over the other will need to be examined through architecture and feature differences rather than raw render scores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon X3440 is built on Intel's 45 nm process, uses the Nehalem architecture under the Lynnfield codename, and is manufactured by Intel. The AMD A6-9400 uses a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with the Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename. The process node difference is significant: 45 nm versus 28 nm is a two-generation jump in lithography, which partly explains the AMD part's lower 65 W TDP compared to the Xeon's 95 W.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The Xeon offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the A6-9400 offers only 2 cores and 2 threads. The Xeon compensates for its older architecture with double the core count and four times the thread count. The A6-9400 counters with higher clocks: its base clock is 3.40 GHz and boost clock is 3.70 GHz, versus the Xeon's 2.53 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost. That clock advantage narrows the gap in single-threaded work but does not fully close it, as the benchmark data shows the Xeon still edges ahead in single-core tests.

Cache layouts are completely different. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The A6-9400 has 160 KB of total L1, 1 MB of shared L2, and no L3 cache at all. The Xeon's large L3 pool is a defining feature of the Lynnfield design, while Bristol Ridge relies on a smaller shared L2 and higher clocks to keep performance competitive.

Memory support also separates the two. The Xeon X3440 uses DDR3 memory with dual-channel support and 21.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The A6-9400 uses DDR4 with dual-channel support and 38.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, nearly double the Xeon's bandwidth, but it does not support ECC. The A6-9400 also includes integrated graphics, a Radeon R5, which the Xeon lacks entirely. PCIe connectivity differs too: the Xeon has Gen 2 with 16 CPU lanes, while the A6-9400 has Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes.

Transistor counts and die sizes reflect the different manufacturing approaches. The Xeon integrates 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die. The A6-9400 packs 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die, a much higher density enabled by the smaller process node.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon X3440 wins every recorded Cinebench test, so on pure rendering performance it is the faster part across the board. Its 4-core, 8-thread configuration gives it a structural advantage in multi-threaded workloads, and the data confirms that even with lower clocks it manages to hold a 2.6% lead in all multi-core tests. The Xeon also wins the single-core tests by 2.5% to 2.9%, which is more notable given that the A6-9400 runs at significantly higher clock speeds. The Xeon's larger cache hierarchy, particularly the 8 MB shared L3, likely contributes to that single-core edge.

The A6-9400 wins in areas that are not directly measured by the Cinebench scores. It has integrated Radeon R5 graphics, so a system built around it does not require a separate GPU for basic display output. The Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. The A6-9400 also uses DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is nearly double the Xeon's 21.3 GB/s. For memory-sensitive workloads that are not represented in the Cinebench results, that bandwidth advantage could matter. The A6-9400's 65 W TDP is also substantially lower than the Xeon's 95 W, which makes cooling and power delivery simpler in compact desktop builds.

The Xeon's ECC memory support and server/workstation market segment point toward reliability-focused use cases, while the A6-9400's desktop segment and active production status point toward everyday consumer systems. The A6-9400 is also on the AM4 socket with PCIe Gen 3, which offers more modern platform compatibility than the Xeon's Socket 1156 with PCIe Gen 2.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The Intel Xeon X3440 wins all three multi-core tests recorded. It scores 238 in R15, 994 in R20, and 2368 in R23, versus 232, 969, and 2309 for the AMD A6-9400. The margin is 2.6% in every case.

Q: Does the AMD A6-9400 have any advantage in single-core performance?

A: No. Despite its higher base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost clock of 3.70 GHz, the A6-9400 loses the single-core tests. The Xeon X3440 scores 140 to 136 in R20 single-core and 334 to 326 in R23 single-core.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD A6-9400 includes a Radeon R5 integrated GPU. The Intel Xeon X3440 has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory for display output.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon X3440 supports ECC memory. The AMD A6-9400 does not.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Xeon X3440 supports DDR3 memory with dual-channel configuration and 21.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The A6-9400 supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel configuration and 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon X3440 has an average benchmark score of 815, and the A6-9400 has an average of 794. The Xeon also holds the 22nd percentile among all CPUs, while the A6-9400 holds the 21st.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon X3440 | AMD A6-9400 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 8 | 2 |

| Base clock | 2.53 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | 2.93 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1156 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Nehalem | Excavator |

| Codename | Lynnfield | Bristol Ridge |

| Process node | 45 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 774 million | 3,100 million |

| Die size | 296 mm² | 250 mm² |

| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 160 KB |

| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory bandwidth | 21.3 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 2, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | None | Radeon R5 |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Production status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release date | 2009-09-07 | 2019-03-15 |

| Launch MSRP | $215 | Not available |

| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon X3440 is the faster processor in every Cinebench test recorded. It wins all five head-to-head comparisons and holds a 2.6% lead in average benchmark score. Anyone choosing purely on rendering performance should take the Xeon, especially in multi-threaded workloads where its 4 cores and 8 threads give it a structural edge over the A6-9400's 2 cores and 2 threads.

The AMD A6-9400 is the more practical choice for a modern desktop build. It fits the AM4 socket, uses DDR4 memory, includes integrated Radeon R5 graphics, draws only 65 W, and remains in active production. The Xeon X3440 is end-of-life, uses the older Socket 1156, requires DDR3, needs a discrete GPU, and draws 95 W. Its launch MSRP was $215, but the platform around it is dated.

For a builder who already has a compatible Socket 1156 board and DDR3 memory, the Xeon X3440 offers slightly better Cinebench performance and ECC memory support, which suits server or workstation use. For a new build, the A6-9400 delivers nearly identical benchmark scores with a modern platform, lower power draw, integrated graphics, and higher memory bandwidth. The performance gap between them is small enough that platform features and ecosystem should drive the decision. The data shows two CPUs in the same tier, with the Xeon holding a narrow but consistent lead and the AMD part offering a more current feature set.