AMD Athlon X4 830 vs Intel Xeon X5492 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score, the Intel Xeon X5492 or the AMD Athlon X4 830?

A: The Intel Xeon X5492 has an average benchmark score of 852, while the AMD Athlon X4 830 scores 848. The Xeon leads by 0.4%, a margin that places both processors in the 23rd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How do the two processors compare in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The Intel Xeon X5492 scores 2475 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, versus 2465 for the AMD Athlon X4 830. That is a 0.4% advantage for Intel, reflecting a near-tie in sustained multi-threaded rendering.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the AMD Athlon X4 830 wins outright?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Intel Xeon X5492 wins all five recorded benchmark tests, though the largest margin is just 0.4% (in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core). The AMD chip never surpasses Intel in any listed test.

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

A: In Cinebench R20 single-core, both score exactly 146, resulting in a 0% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 349 versus 348 for the Athlon, a 0.3% edge for Intel.

Q: Do these processors share the same socket or memory support?

A: No. The Intel Xeon X5492 uses Intel Socket 771 and supports both DDR2 and DDR3 memory. The AMD Athlon X4 830 uses AMD Socket FM2+ and supports only DDR3.

Q: Which processor has a higher transistor count and what does that suggest?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 830 contains 2,411 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, while the Intel Xeon X5492 has 820 million transistors across two 107 mm² dies. Despite AMD's larger transistor budget, benchmark scores remain nearly identical, implying architectural efficiency differences.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a picture of extraordinary parity, but there are subtle distinctions in where each chip can claim a marginal edge. The Intel Xeon X5492 wins all five recorded head-to-head tests, yet the margins are razor-thin: 0.4% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 0.4% in R20 multi-core, 0% in R20 single-core, 0.4% in R23 multi-core, and 0.3% in R23 single-core. This means the Xeon holds a consistent, if minuscule, advantage in every workload measured.

For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput, the Xeon's 249 versus 248 in Cinebench R15 and 1039 versus 1035 in R20 multi-core suggest it is ever so slightly better at leveraging all four cores simultaneously. The single-core results are effectively a dead heat, with identical R20 scores of 146 and only a one-point difference in R23 (349 versus 348). Given these numbers, the AMD Athlon X4 830 does not win a single listed benchmark, so its "win" is more about platform attributes: a much lower 65W TDP versus 150W for Intel, PCIe Gen 3 support with 16 lanes, and an unlocked multiplier. Those features do not show up in Cinebench scores but matter for system-level flexibility.

The data implies that if you are choosing strictly on compute performance, the Xeon is the nominal winner, but the margin is so small it borders on statistical noise. The Athlon's appeal lies in its efficiency and platform traits, not in benchmark victories.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design philosophies and manufacturing backgrounds. The Intel Xeon X5492 is built on the Core 2 architecture, codenamed Harpertown, using a 45 nm process at Intel's foundry. It packs 820 million transistors across a dual-die setup with each die measuring 107 mm². The Athlon X4 830, by contrast, uses AMD's Steamroller architecture, codenamed Kaveri, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 28 nm node. AMD's chip crams 2,411 million transistors onto a single 245 mm² die, a massive transistor budget compared to Intel.

Cache hierarchies also diverge sharply. The Xeon allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 6 MB of L2 cache per die, with no L3 cache. The Athlon provides 256 KB of L1 cache total and 4 MB of L2 cache, also without L3. Notably, the Xeon's dual-die design means each die carries its own 6 MB L2, so the effective per-core cache allocation differs from AMD's unified 4 MB L2. The process node gap—45 nm versus 28 nm—explains part of the transistor density difference, but the architectural goals were different: Intel targeted server/workstation reliability, while AMD aimed for desktop efficiency.

Memory support reflects those goals. The Xeon supports both DDR2 and DDR3 in a dual-channel configuration and includes ECC memory capability, a hallmark of server platforms. The Athlon supports only DDR3, also dual-channel, with a specified memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, and lacks ECC support entirely. PCIe generations differ too: the Xeon uses Gen 2, while the Athlon offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes limited to the CPU. Integrated graphics are absent from both, but the Xeon's market segment is Server/Workstation, whereas the Athlon is a Desktop part.

Specification Differences

The most glaring specification gap is thermal design power. The Intel Xeon X5492 draws 150W, while the AMD Athlon X4 830 sips just 65W—a difference of 85W that makes the Athlon far more suitable for compact or thermally constrained builds. Base clocks differ as well: the Xeon runs at 3.40 GHz with no boost clock listed, while the Athlon starts at 3.00 GHz but can boost to 3.40 GHz. This means the Athlon's peak single-thread clock matches the Xeon's fixed clock, yet the Xeon still edges out the Athlon in single-core benchmarks.

Memory support is another differentiator. The Xeon accepts DDR2 and DDR3, offering flexibility for older server platforms, whereas the Athlon is limited to DDR3. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the Athlon. The Xeon's socket is Intel Socket 771, while the Athlon uses AMD Socket FM2+. Process node favors AMD at 28 nm versus Intel's 45 nm, and transistor count heavily favors AMD (2,411 million versus 820 million), though die size is also larger (245 mm² versus 2x 107 mm²).

The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $1493, and its multiplier is locked. The Athlon has no listed launch MSRP, but its multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking. The Xeon's part number is SLBBD, while the Athlon is AD830XYBI44JA. Production status is end-of-life for both, but the Xeon has a release date of September 2008, while the Athlon's release date is not listed. PCIe support differs: Gen 2 for the Xeon, Gen 3 with 16 lanes for the Athlon. The Athlon also lists a memory bandwidth figure of 34.1 GB/s, which the Xeon does not provide.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark suite consists entirely of Cinebench tests, which stress CPU rendering performance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel Xeon X5492 scores 249 against the AMD Athlon X4 830's 248, a 0.4% delta. That is the closest margin in the entire set, but it still favors Intel. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 1039 versus 1035, again a 0.4% edge for the Xeon.

Single-core results are even tighter. In Cinebench R20 single-core, both processors score exactly 146, making the delta 0%—a perfect tie. The R23 single-core test breaks the tie in favor of Intel by a single point: 349 versus 348, a 0.3% advantage. The largest absolute gap appears in R23 multi-core, where the Xeon scores 2475 and the Athlon scores 2465, a 10-point difference that still translates to only 0.4%.

The pattern is unmistakable: the Intel Xeon X5492 wins every test, but the margins are so small that the results are effectively interchangeable in real-world use. The average benchmark scores reflect this—852 for Intel versus 848 for AMD, a 0.4% spread. The nearest rivals list confirms the two chips are grouped with similar performers like the Intel Core i5-5250U (856, -0.4% versus Xeon) and the AMD FX-8800P (843, 0.6% versus Athlon). For users, this means choosing between the two on performance alone is a coin flip, though the Xeon's 5-0 win record gives it the technical edge in every measured scenario.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, conclusion: the Intel Xeon X5492 is the faster processor in every benchmark recorded, but the AMD Athlon X4 830 is not far behind—and in some tests, it is essentially tied. The Xeon's 0.4% advantage in multi-core Cinebench tests and 0.3% edge in R23 single-core are real but negligible for most workloads. If pure compute performance is the sole criterion, the Xeon wins all five head-to-head matchups and should be the pick.

However, the specification sheet tells a different story for system builders. The Athlon X4 830 consumes less than half the power (65W versus 150W), runs on a more modern 28 nm process, supports PCIe Gen 3, and has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The Xeon counters with ECC memory support, dual DDR2/DDR3 compatibility, and a server-grade pedigree, but its 150W TDP demands serious cooling and power delivery. The Athlon also lacks a listed release date, while the Xeon dates to 2008, suggesting the AMD part may be a later design.

For a workstation or server environment where ECC memory and multi-generation memory support are critical, the Xeon's feature set aligns with those needs. For a desktop user who values efficiency, overclocking headroom, and modern connectivity, the Athlon offers a more flexible platform—even if it loses every benchmark by a hair. The verdict hinges on priorities: the Xeon for benchmark supremacy and server features, the Athlon for power efficiency and platform versatility. Both are end-of-life parts, so availability and platform fit will likely dictate the final choice.