AMD A6-9400 vs Intel Xeon X5482 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split here is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon X5482 wins every recorded head-to-head test. Across five Cinebench workloads, the Xeon takes all five, with no wins recorded for the AMD A6-9400. That is not a narrow sweep either; the margins are consistent, if modest, in every test.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Xeon X5482 leads in Cinebench R15 multicore with a score of 235 against 232 for the A6-9400, a 1.3% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Xeon scores 983 versus 969, a 1.4% edge. The R23 multicore test shows the same pattern: 2341 versus 2309, again a 1.4% gap. These are not dramatic differences, but they are reproducible across every multicore test in the database.

Single-thread scores tell the same story. The Xeon wins Cinebench R20 single-core with 138 versus 136, a 1.5% margin. In R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 330 against 326, a 1.2% edge. The consistency of the single-core wins matters: the A6-9400 has a higher base clock (3.40 GHz versus 3.20 GHz) and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, yet it still trails in every single-threaded benchmark. That suggests the Xeon's older Core 2 architecture extracts more work per cycle than the Excavator-based A6, despite the clock disadvantage.

The A6-9400 does not win any recorded benchmark, so there is no workload category in this data where it comes out ahead. That said, its average benchmark score of 794 sits close to the Xeon's 805, and its percentile rank of 21 versus 22 puts it essentially in the same performance class. The practical takeaway: these two chips are near-neighbors in overall performance, but the Xeon has the edge in every measured scenario.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon X5482 is a Core 2 architecture part, codenamed Harpertown, built for the server and workstation segment. It uses a 45 nm process node with 820 million transistors on a dual-die design measuring 2x 107 mm². It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and no boost clock. The cache layout is distinctive: 64 KB of L1 per core and 6 MB of L2 per die, with no L3 cache. It supports DDR2 and DDR3 memory depending on the motherboard, running dual-channel, and includes ECC memory support. It uses PCIe Gen 2 and is installed on Intel Socket 771. The part is end-of-life, having been released in November 2007.

The AMD A6-9400 is a fundamentally different design. It is built on the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, and targets the desktop segment. It uses a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. It has 2 cores and 2 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The cache is smaller: 160 KB of L1 and 1 MB of shared L2, with no L3. It supports DDR4 memory only, dual-channel, with a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported. It uses PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes. Unusually for a desktop CPU, it includes integrated Radeon R5 graphics. It fits AMD Socket AM4 and remains in active production, released in March 2019.

Several contrasts stand out. The Xeon has twice the cores and threads of the A6-9400, which explains its multicore wins despite the older architecture. The A6-9400 counters with a much newer process node in terms of transistor count, but Excavator was not a high-IPC design. The Xeon's dual-die layout with per-die L2 is a server-oriented approach, while the A6-9400's shared L2 and integrated graphics point to a low-cost desktop part. The memory situation is a major split: the Xeon can use DDR2 or DDR3 with ECC, while the A6-9400 is locked to DDR4 without ECC. The A6-9400's PCIe Gen 3 support is newer than the Xeon's Gen 2, and its 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth is a concrete specification that the Xeon does not list.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform, but the margins deserve attention. The Xeon's largest win is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 138 against 136, a 1.5% delta. That is the biggest percentage gap in the entire set, which is notable because the A6-9400 has a higher clock speed. The A6-9400 runs at 3.40 GHz base and can boost to 3.70 GHz, while the Xeon is fixed at 3.20 GHz. Despite the clock disadvantage, the Xeon still moves ahead by 1.5% in the R20 single test, a clear sign that its older but wider-core design delivers more instructions per cycle.

In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Xeon scores 983 versus 969, a 1.4% advantage. That gap is smaller than the single-core margin, which makes sense given that the A6-9400 has only 2 cores while the Xeon has 4. If the A6-9400 could scale perfectly with cores, the Xeon's 2-to-1 core advantage would produce a much larger multicore lead. The fact that the Xeon only wins by 1.4% in multicore suggests the A6-9400's higher clock and newer memory subsystem compensate significantly for its core deficit.

Cinebench R23 multicore shows the Xeon at 2341 versus 2309, a 1.4% delta, nearly identical to the R20 result. R23 single-core gives the Xeon 330 against 326, a 1.2% margin. R15 multicore is the tightest test: 235 versus 232, a 1.3% gap. Across all five tests, the Xeon's average win is roughly 1.3% to 1.5%, a narrow but consistent band. These are not the kind of margins that change a buying decision on their own, but they do show that the Xeon never loses a measured workload.

Looking at the broader rival context, the Xeon's average benchmark score of 805 places it exactly level with the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U at 805 (0% delta), just ahead of the Intel Core i5-3320M at 803 (0.3% delta), and slightly behind the Intel Core i7-870S at 809 (-0.4% delta). The A6-9400's average score of 794 ties with the AMD A10-5800B at 794 (0.1% delta) and trails the AMD A10-7850K at 796 (-0.3% delta). These rival comparisons put both chips in the same performance tier, roughly equivalent to low-end mobile or older desktop parts from around the same era.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon X5482 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD A6-9400 has 2 cores and 2 threads. The Xeon has exactly twice the core count.

Q: Does the AMD A6-9400 win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The head-to-head results show the Xeon winning all 5 recorded tests, with the A6-9400 recording 0 wins.

Q: How close are these two processors in overall performance?

A: The Xeon's average benchmark score is 805, while the A6-9400's is 794. The Xeon ranks at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, and the A6-9400 ranks at the 21st percentile.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon X5482 supports ECC memory. The AMD A6-9400 does not support ECC.

Q: Does the AMD A6-9400 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the A6-9400 includes Radeon R5 integrated graphics. The Xeon X5482 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory type difference?

A: The Xeon supports DDR2 and DDR3 depending on the motherboard, while the A6-9400 supports DDR4 only. The A6-9400 has a listed memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, and the Xeon has no bandwidth figure in the database.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ on nearly every major specification line. The core and thread counts are a 2-to-1 split: the Xeon has 4 cores and 4 threads, the A6-9400 has 2 cores and 2 threads. Base clocks differ, with the Xeon at 3.20 GHz and the A6-9400 at 3.40 GHz, plus the A6-9400 adds a 3.70 GHz boost clock that the Xeon lacks. Thermal design power is dramatically different: the Xeon draws 150 watts, while the A6-9400 draws 65 watts. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 771 versus AMD Socket AM4.

The process technology is a major generational gap. The Xeon uses a 45 nm node from Intel, while the A6-9400 uses a 28 nm node from GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts are 820 million versus 3,100 million, and die sizes are 2x 107 mm² versus 250 mm². The cache structures are completely different: the Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core and 6 MB L2 per die, while the A6-9400 has 160 KB L1 and 1 MB shared L2. Memory support diverges sharply: DDR2/DDR3 for the Xeon versus DDR4 for the A6-9400. The A6-9400 lists 38.4 GB/s memory bandwidth; the Xeon lists none. ECC support is present on the Xeon and absent on the A6-9400. PCIe generations differ: Gen 2 on the Xeon versus Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes on the A6-9400. The A6-9400 has integrated Radeon R5 graphics; the Xeon has none. Market segments are Server/Workstation for the Xeon and Desktop for the A6-9400. Production status is end-of-life for the Xeon and active for the A6-9400. Release dates are November 2007 for the Xeon and March 2019 for the A6-9400. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $1279, while the A6-9400 has no launch MSRP listed. Both are multiplier-unlocked: false.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow conclusion. The Intel Xeon X5482 wins every benchmark in the database, with margins between 1.2% and 1.5% across all five Cinebench tests. If the decision rests purely on recorded performance, the Xeon is the faster chip in every measured scenario. Its 4-core, 4-thread layout gives it a structural advantage in multicore tests, and its single-core wins despite a lower clock show that the Core 2 architecture holds up well against Excavator.

The AMD A6-9400 is not far behind, though. Its average benchmark score of 794 sits within 1.4% of the Xeon's 805, and its percentile rank of 21 versus 22 is effectively the same tier. The A6-9400 has a 65-watt TDP versus the Xeon's 150 watts, a massive efficiency difference. It also supports DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, includes integrated Radeon R5 graphics, and uses a modern AM4 socket with PCIe Gen 3. The Xeon requires a server/workstation platform with Socket 771, DDR2 or DDR3, and no integrated graphics.

For a builder focused purely on peak Cinebench scores, the Xeon X5482 is the correct pick, provided the platform costs and power draw are acceptable. For a builder who needs a low-power desktop part with integrated graphics, modern memory support, and an active production status, the A6-9400 is the sensible choice. The Xeon's 150-watt TDP and end-of-life status are serious practical drawbacks that the benchmark scores do not capture. The A6-9400 trades about 1.4% of performance for a 65-watt TDP, DDR4 support, and a current socket. The recorded data shows the Xeon winning all five tests, but the specification sheet shows the A6-9400 winning on efficiency, memory modernity, and platform longevity. Choose the Xeon only if raw benchmark leadership is the sole criterion; choose the A6-9400 if the system as a whole matters more than a 1.5% score difference.