CPU Comparison

Intel Xeon W3570 and AMD A8-9600 are two very different processors from different eras, yet benchmark results place them in a surprisingly close performance band. The Xeon W3570 is an end-of-life server/workstation part from Intel’s Nehalem generation, while the A8-9600 is an active desktop APU from AMD’s Excavator family. Across five Cinebench tests, the AMD A8-9600 wins every single matchup, but the margins are extremely narrow, never exceeding 0.8%. The data shows a statistical tie in raw compute, with the AMD part taking a slight edge in each workload.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A8-9600 wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, making it the outright leader in both multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests. In multi-core workloads, the A8-9600 scores 281 in Cinebench R15 versus 279 for the Xeon W3570, a delta of -0.7% from the Intel part’s perspective. The pattern continues in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the AMD chip posts 1174 against 1165, and in R23 multi-core with 2797 versus 2776. Single-core results follow the same trend: the A8-9600 leads 165 to 164 in R20 and 394 to 392 in R23. These are consistent but tiny advantages, ranging from 0.5% to 0.8% depending on the test.

The Intel Xeon W3570 does not win any benchmark in this comparison, yet its performance profile is not without merit. The Xeon’s 4-core/8-thread configuration with Hyper-Threading technology allows it to process eight threads simultaneously, which is double the thread count of the A8-9600’s 4-core/4-thread setup. Despite this theoretical throughput advantage, the A8-9600 still edges ahead in every multi-core test, indicating that the AMD part’s per-core efficiency and architecture improvements compensate for its lack of SMT. The Xeon W3570’s 25th percentile ranking among all CPUs places it just below the A8-9600’s 26th percentile, reinforcing the near-identical overall standing.

Where the Xeon W3570 could be considered a winner is in platform capabilities rather than raw benchmark scores. It supports ECC memory, which the A8-9600 does not, and features triple-channel DDR3 memory support compared to the AMD part’s dual-channel DDR4. The Xeon also carries a 130W TDP, allowing for higher power delivery, while the A8-9600 operates at a much more modest 65W. However, none of these platform attributes translate into Cinebench victories; the benchmark data is unambiguous that the AMD A8-9600 takes every compute test.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD A8-9600 is the faster processor in every measured workload, though the margins are so small that real-world perceptible differences would be negligible. The A8-9600 leads by 0.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 0.8% in R20 multi-core, 0.6% in R20 single-core, 0.8% in R23 multi-core, and 0.5% in R23 single-core. For users prioritizing raw Cinebench performance, the AMD A8-9600 is the clear choice based on benchmark results alone. Its 26th percentile standing versus the Xeon’s 25th percentile further confirms the slight overall edge.

However, the Intel Xeon W3570 remains relevant for specific use cases that the benchmarks do not capture. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a critical feature for error-sensitive workstation and server environments, and offers triple-channel memory bandwidth which can benefit memory-intensive applications beyond Cinebench. The Xeon’s 8-thread capability provides additional parallel processing headroom that could be advantageous in multithreaded workloads not represented in these particular tests. The Xeon is also built on a 45nm process with 731 million transistors, compared to the A8-9600’s 28nm process with 3,100 million transistors, reflecting vastly different architectural generations.

For a general-purpose desktop user, the A8-9600 is the better recommendation because it wins all benchmarks, includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, and supports DDR4 memory with a PCIe Gen 3 interface. The Xeon W3570, lacking integrated graphics, requires a discrete GPU and is aimed at server/workstation platforms. The Xeon’s end-of-life status also means it is no longer in production, while the A8-9600 remains active. Ultimately, the A8-9600 is the benchmark victor, but the Xeon W3570’s platform features may tip the scale for users requiring ECC or legacy Socket 1366 compatibility.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin of victory for the AMD A8-9600 occurs in two tests tied at 0.8%: Cinebench R20 multi-core and Cinebench R23 multi-core. In R20 multi-core, the A8-9600 scores 1174 against the Xeon’s 1165, a difference of just 9 points. In R23 multi-core, the A8-9600 posts 2797 versus 2776, an 11-point gap. These multi-core results are particularly telling because the Xeon W3570 has twice the thread count (8 threads versus 4), yet still loses. This suggests the A8-9600’s Excavator architecture delivers substantially higher instructions per clock per thread, more than compensating for the lack of simultaneous multithreading.

The smallest victory margin is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the A8-9600 scores 394 versus the Xeon’s 392, a delta of 0.5%. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a similar pattern with the A8-9600 leading 165 to 164, a 0.6% advantage. These single-core results indicate that the AMD part’s per-core performance is slightly superior, despite the Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.20 GHz versus 3.10 GHz and boost clock of 3.47 GHz versus 3.40 GHz. The Xeon’s clock speed advantage of 0.10 GHz base and 0.07 GHz boost is insufficient to overcome the architectural efficiency of the Excavator core design.

Cinebench R15 multi-core yields the closest absolute score, with the A8-9600 at 281 and the Xeon W3570 at 279, a 2-point difference representing 0.7%. Across all five tests, the average benchmark score reflects the overall parity: the A8-9600 averages 962 points while the Xeon averages 955 points. The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon W3550 (delta -0.1%), AMD Athlon X4 870K (delta -0.1%), and Intel Core i7-950 (delta -0.2%), all scoring within 2 points of 955. The A8-9600’s nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T and Intel Core i3-4360T (both delta -0.1%), with the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 at delta +0.4% and Intel Celeron N5100 at delta -0.5%.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD A8-9600 wins all three multi-core tests: Cinebench R15 (281 vs 279), R20 (1174 vs 1165), and R23 (2797 vs 2776). The margins are 0.7% to 0.8%.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon W3570’s 8-thread advantage help it win any test?

A: No. Despite having 8 threads versus the A8-9600’s 4 threads, the Xeon loses every multi-core benchmark, with the largest deficit being 0.8% in Cinebench R20 and R23 multi-core.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The A8-9600 leads in single-core tests as well, scoring 165 vs 164 in Cinebench R20 and 394 vs 392 in Cinebench R23, representing 0.6% and 0.5% advantages respectively.

Q: What is the overall performance percentile for each processor?

A: The AMD A8-9600 sits at the 26th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Xeon W3570 is at the 25th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 962 and 955, respectively.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon W3570 supports ECC memory. The AMD A8-9600 does not support ECC.

Q: What are the memory and PCIe capabilities of each?

A: The Xeon W3570 uses triple-channel DDR3 with PCIe Gen 2, while the A8-9600 uses dual-channel DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon W3570 and AMD A8-9600 represent fundamentally different architectural approaches separated by eight years of silicon evolution. The Xeon W3570 is built on Intel’s 45nm process with a die size of 263 mm² and contains 731 million transistors. It uses the Nehalem architecture with the Bloomfield codename, featuring 4 cores and 8 threads. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

The AMD A8-9600 is fabricated on GlobalFoundries’ 28nm process with a similar die size of 250 mm² but packs 3,100 million transistors, over four times the transistor count of the Xeon. It uses the Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename, with 4 cores and 4 threads. The cache structure is notably different: 320 KB of L1 total, 2 MB of L2 total, and no L3 cache at all. This lack of L3 is a significant architectural divergence, yet the A8-9600 still outperforms the Xeon in all benchmarks, suggesting that its larger L2 and advanced process node compensate.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The Xeon W3570 supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, while the A8-9600 uses dual-channel DDR4 with a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the A8-9600. PCIe capabilities also diverge: the Xeon provides PCIe Gen 2, while the A8-9600 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU-only lanes. The A8-9600 integrates Radeon R7 graphics, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU.

Power characteristics reflect their different market positions. The Xeon W3570 has a TDP of 130W, suited for workstation platforms, while the A8-9600 consumes only 65W, making it far more energy-efficient for desktop use. The Xeon is a server/workstation part from the Xeon (Bloomfield) generation, released in March 2009, and is end-of-life. The A8-9600 is a desktop part from the A8 (Bristol Ridge) generation, released in July 2017, and remains active in production. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, while the A8-9600 uses AMD Socket AM4. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon’s part number is SLBES, and the A8-9600’s part number is AD9600AGABBOXAD9600AGM44AB.