AMD Athlon X4 830 vs Intel Xeon X3450 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 830 holds a marginal edge with an average benchmark score of 848, compared to 837 for the Intel Xeon X3450 — a difference of roughly 1.3%.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 830 wins all multi-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2465 versus 2431 for the Xeon X3450, a 1.4% advantage. The R20 multi-core result is 1035 against 1021, also a 1.4% lead.

Q: What is the single-core performance gap between the two?

A: The AMD chip leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 348 versus 343 (1.5% delta), and in R20 single-core it posts 146 against 144 (1.4% delta).

Q: Where does each processor rank relative to all CPUs in the database?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 830 sits at the 23rd percentile, while the Intel Xeon X3450 is at the 22nd percentile. Both are positioned near the lower-mid range of all CPUs.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon X3450 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Athlon X4 830 does not. This is a notable feature split given the Xeon's server/workstation market positioning.

Q: What was the launch price of the Intel Xeon X3450?

A: The Intel Xeon X3450 had a launch MSRP of $241. The AMD Athlon X4 830 has no listed launch MSRP in the data.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Athlon X4 830 is built on GlobalFoundries' 28 nm process using the Steamroller architecture, codenamed Kaveri. It integrates 2,411 million transistors into a 245 mm² die. The Intel Xeon X3450 uses Intel's 45 nm process with the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Lynnfield, packing 774 million transistors into a larger 296 mm² die.

Both processors feature four physical cores, but the threading differs fundamentally. The AMD chip provides four threads total — one per core — while the Intel Xeon X3450 offers eight threads through Hyper-Threading, giving it twice the logical thread count.

Cache layouts diverge sharply. The Athlon X4 830 has 256 KB of L1 cache and 4 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache present. The Xeon X3450 allocates 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, then adds a shared 8 MB L3 cache. This gives the Intel part a significantly larger total cache footprint for data reuse across threads.

Clock speeds favor AMD in raw terms. The Athlon X4 830 runs at a 3.00 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.40 GHz, while the Xeon X3450 operates at 2.67 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. However, the Xeon's power envelope is higher at 95 W TDP versus 65 W for the AMD part.

Memory support shows both using DDR3 with dual-channel buses, but bandwidth differs: the AMD chip reaches 34.1 GB/s, while the Intel part is rated at 21.3 GB/s. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Athlon does not.

PCIe generations differ as well. The AMD Athlon X4 830 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon X3450 offers PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Xeon's multiplier is locked.

The market segments reflect their intended roles: the Athlon X4 830 is a Desktop part on AMD Socket FM2+, and the Xeon X3450 is a Server/Workstation part on Intel Socket 1156. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent: the AMD Athlon X4 830 wins all five Cinebench comparisons, though by narrow margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD part scores 248 against 245 for the Xeon X3450, a 1.2% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows 1035 versus 1021, a 1.4% lead.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. Cinebench R20 single-core gives the Athlon X4 830 a 146 score versus 144 for the Xeon, a 1.4% delta. The R23 single-core test yields 348 against 343, the largest relative gap at 1.5%.

The most decisive multi-core margin appears in both R20 and R23 multi-core tests, where the AMD chip holds a 1.4% advantage. Even in R15, the oldest test in the set, the Athlon X4 830 maintains a 1.2% edge.

What stands out is the absence of any Intel win. The Xeon X3450's eight threads do not translate into a multi-core advantage in these Cinebench workloads — the AMD chip's higher clock speeds and superior memory bandwidth appear to compensate for the thread-count deficit. The margins are small enough that they could be considered within run-to-run variance, but the direction is uniform across every benchmark.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this: 848 for the AMD part versus 837 for the Intel part. Looking at nearest rivals, the Athlon X4 830's closest competitor is the Intel Xeon X5492 at 852 (0.4% faster), while the Xeon X3450's closest rival is the Intel Xeon X5470 at 839 (0.3% faster). Both chips sit in a dense cluster of similar-performing CPUs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Athlon X4 830 | Intel Xeon X3450 |

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

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.67 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.40 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 95 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FM2+ | Intel Socket 1156 |

| Architecture | Steamroller | Nehalem |

| Codename | Kaveri | Lynnfield |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 45 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 2,411 million | 774 million |

| Die Size | 245 mm² | 296 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 256 KB (per core) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | 21.3 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe Version | Gen 3 | Gen 2 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | Not listed | 2009-09-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $241 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | AD830XYBI44JA | SLBLD |

The two processors share cores (4), memory type (DDR3), memory bus (dual-channel), integrated graphics (none), and production status (end-of-life). Everything else in the specification table differs.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Athlon X4 830: The data shows this chip winning every benchmark in the head-to-head set. It holds advantages in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 1.2% to 1.5%. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.00/3.40 GHz versus 2.67/3.20 GHz) contribute to these wins. The AMD part also offers significantly higher memory bandwidth at 34.1 GB/s versus 21.3 GB/s, which can benefit memory-sensitive workloads. Its lower 65 W TDP makes it a more power-efficient choice on paper, and the unlocked multiplier appeals to users seeking manual configuration. The PCIe Gen 3 support provides a newer interface standard for compatible platforms.

Intel Xeon X3450: This processor's case rests on features rather than benchmark scores. It supports ECC memory, a requirement for many server and workstation environments where data integrity is critical. The 8 MB shared L3 cache provides a large pool for thread communication and repeated data access, which could benefit certain multi-threaded server workloads beyond the Cinebench suite. The eight threads offer better logical parallelism for highly threaded applications, even if Cinebench does not show a benefit. Its server/workstation market segment suggests certification and reliability expectations for prolonged operation. The launch MSRP of $241 provides a reference point for its original positioning as a server-class part.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Athlon X4 830 outperforms the Intel Xeon X3450 in every Cinebench test recorded. The margins are consistent but narrow — between 1.2% and 1.5% across all five benchmarks. The average benchmark score confirms this at 848 versus 837, placing the AMD part at the 23rd percentile and the Intel part at the 22nd percentile.

For users prioritizing raw rendering performance in Cinebench-style workloads, the AMD Athlon X4 830 is the data-driven choice. It wins on single-core and multi-core metrics alike, despite having only four threads versus eight. Its higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth appear to offset the Xeon's thread advantage. The 65 W TDP also makes it the more power-conscious option.

The Intel Xeon X3450 should be selected when feature requirements outweigh benchmark scores. ECC memory support is the decisive differentiator — the AMD part lacks it entirely. The Xeon's 8 MB L3 cache and server/workstation pedigree suggest suitability for reliability-focused deployments where error-correcting memory is non-negotiable. The locked multiplier and older PCIe Gen 2 interface are acceptable trade-offs in such environments.

Given the proximity of their benchmark scores, neither processor represents a substantial performance tier above the other. The AMD part edges ahead in compute, while the Intel part brings platform features that the AMD chip cannot match. Buyers with ECC requirements have one logical option; buyers prioritizing speed and efficiency have the other. The data does not support a universal recommendation — it supports a use-case-driven decision.