AMD A8-9600 vs Intel Xeon X5560 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unusual outcome: the AMD A8-9600 wins every single head-to-head comparison against the Intel Xeon X5560, despite the Xeon being a server-class part with double the thread count. The margins are narrow, ranging from 1.5% to 1.8% across all five Cinebench tests, but they are consistent. The A8-9600 achieves an average benchmark score of 962 against the Xeon's 946, a difference that places the AMD part in the 26th percentile of all CPUs while the Intel sits at the 25th.

For a user choosing between these two today, the data points clearly toward the A8-9600 for any workload represented by these Cinebench results. It is faster in single-core and multi-core rendering tests alike, and it does so while drawing 65 watts compared to the Xeon's 95 watts. The A8-9600 also brings integrated graphics, DDR4 memory support, and an active production status, whereas the Xeon is end-of-life and lacks integrated graphics entirely.

The Xeon X5560 still has one structural advantage: 8 threads versus 4. Yet the recorded benchmarks show that advantage does not translate into a win in any of the tested scenarios. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium Gold G5400T and AMD Phenom II X6 1045T, both at an identical average score of 946, while the A8-9600 sits alongside the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T and Intel Core i3-4360T at 963. The data suggests the A8-9600 is the better pick for general computing and rendering tasks, while the Xeon's only remaining appeal would be for legacy server platforms where its socket and ECC memory support matter more than raw benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon X5560 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Gainestown, built on a 45 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It packs 731 million transistors into a 263 mm² die. The AMD A8-9600 uses the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, manufactured on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with a much larger transistor count of 3,100 million spread across a 250 mm² die.

Core and thread configurations differ sharply. The Xeon offers 4 cores and 8 threads, leveraging Hyper-Threading to double its logical processing capacity. The A8-9600 offers 4 cores and 4 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading. That means the Intel part can handle double the thread count, yet it still loses every multi-core benchmark in the data, which suggests the Excavator cores are significantly more efficient per thread in these workloads.

Cache hierarchies tell a story of different design priorities. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 8 MB L3 cache. The A8-9600 has a total of 320 KB L1 and 2 MB L2, with no L3 cache at all. The Xeon's large shared L3 is a classic server-oriented design, while the A8-9600's smaller cache layout reflects a desktop-focused part that relies on other factors for performance.

Memory support diverges completely. The Xeon uses DDR3 with a triple-channel memory bus, while the A8-9600 uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and a rated memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the A8-9600. PCIe generations also differ: the Xeon offers PCIe Gen 2, while the A8-9600 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes. The A8-9600 integrates a Radeon R7 graphics solution; the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. The Xeon targets the server and workstation segment, while the A8-9600 is a desktop part. The Xeon launched in March 2009 and is end-of-life; the A8-9600 launched in July 2017 and remains active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Every measured comparison favors the AMD A8-9600, but the margins are tight enough to warrant scrutiny. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the A8-9600 scores 281 against the Xeon's 276, a 1.8% advantage. This is notable because the Xeon has 8 threads to the AMD's 4, yet the AMD part still comes out ahead in a workload that should theoretically scale with thread count.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: the A8-9600 scores 1174, the Xeon scores 1154, a 1.7% difference. The consistency of these margins across different Cinebench versions suggests a stable performance relationship rather than a workload-specific fluke. In R20 single-core, the A8-9600 scores 165 to the Xeon's 162, another 1.8% edge.

Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers the largest absolute gap in points: 2797 for the A8-9600 versus 2749 for the Xeon, a 1.7% difference. The single-core R23 test shows the closest margin, 394 versus 388, at 1.5%. Across all five tests, the AMD part never trails by any margin, and the narrow deltas indicate that the two processors are broadly comparable in raw compute capability, with the A8-9600 holding a small but consistent edge.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this: 962 for the A8-9600 versus 946 for the Xeon. The Xeon's nearest rival at exactly 946 is the Intel Pentium Gold G5400T and the AMD Phenom II X6 1045T, both with a 0% delta. The A8-9600's nearest rival at 963 is the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T with a -0.1% delta. These placement details show both processors occupying the same performance tier, with the A8-9600 sitting slightly above the Xeon in the overall distribution.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Xeon X5560 beat the AMD A8-9600 in any benchmark?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the AMD A8-9600 winning all five Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 1.5% to 1.8% in its favor.

Q: The Xeon has 8 threads and the A8-9600 has 4. Why does the AMD chip win multi-core tests?

A: The benchmark results indicate that the A8-9600's Excavator cores are more efficient per thread in Cinebench workloads. Despite having half the thread count, the A8-9600 scores 281 versus 276 in R15 multi-core, 1174 versus 1154 in R20 multi-core, and 2797 versus 2749 in R23 multi-core.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon X5560 supports ECC memory, while the AMD A8-9600 does not. This makes the Xeon more suitable for server or workstation environments where error-correcting memory is required.

Q: Does the AMD A8-9600 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the A8-9600 includes a Radeon R7 integrated graphics solution. The Intel Xeon X5560 has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory for any display output on that platform.

Q: How do these processors compare in power consumption?

A: The AMD A8-9600 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Intel Xeon X5560 has a TDP of 95 watts. The A8-9600 delivers higher benchmark scores while drawing 30 watts less.

Q: What memory types do these CPUs support?

A: The Xeon X5560 supports DDR3 memory with a triple-channel bus. The A8-9600 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a rated memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD A8-9600 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. It takes multi-core workloads across all three Cinebench versions, from R15 through R23, with consistent margins. It also wins both single-core tests, giving it a clean sweep across rendering workloads that emphasize parallel performance and those that emphasize single-thread speed. For a desktop user running Cinebench-style rendering tasks, the data shows the A8-9600 is the faster choice.

The A8-9600 also wins on platform modernity. It supports DDR4 memory, PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, and includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics. Its 65 watt TDP is substantially lower than the Xeon's 95 watts. It remains an active product, while the Xeon is end-of-life. The A8-9600's socket, AMD Socket AM4, is a desktop platform, and its memory bandwidth is rated at 38.4 GB/s.

The Intel Xeon X5560 has no benchmark wins in the recorded data, but it does hold advantages in specific feature areas. It provides 8 threads, which could benefit workloads beyond the tested Cinebench suite, though the database does not include evidence of such a benefit. It supports ECC memory, a critical feature for error-sensitive server workloads. Its cache layout includes an 8 MB shared L3 cache, far larger than the A8-9600's 2 MB L2 with no L3. The Xeon also offers a triple-channel memory bus, which can provide higher memory throughput in theory, although the A8-9600's DDR4 support and 38.4 GB/s rated bandwidth complicate direct comparison. The Xeon's server and workstation market segment means it belongs to platforms where ECC, triple-channel memory, and legacy socket compatibility are priorities.

For a user building a new system today, the data favors the A8-9600 in both performance and efficiency. For a user maintaining an existing Intel Socket 1366 server platform, the Xeon remains a functional option, but the recorded benchmarks show it cannot match the A8-9600 in the tested rendering workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category in the database. The Xeon X5560 uses the Nehalem architecture on a 45 nm process, while the A8-9600 uses Excavator on a 28 nm process. The Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads, the A8-9600 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.80 GHz for the Xeon and 3.10 GHz for the A8-9600, with boost clocks of 3.20 GHz and 3.40 GHz respectively.

TDP differs substantially: 95 watts for the Xeon, 65 watts for the A8-9600. Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1366 versus AMD Socket AM4. The Xeon's transistor count is 731 million on a 263 mm² die, while the A8-9600 has 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. Cache configurations are entirely different: the Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3; the A8-9600 has 320 KB total L1 and 2 MB L2 with no L3.

Memory support diverges: DDR3 with triple-channel on the Xeon, DDR4 with dual-channel on the A8-9600, which also has a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. PCIe generations differ, with Gen 2 on the Xeon and Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes on the A8-9600. The A8-9600 includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics; the Xeon has none. Market segments are server/workstation for the Xeon and desktop for the A8-9600. The Xeon is end-of-life and was released in March 2009; the A8-9600 is active and was released in July 2017. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.