AMD Athlon X4 840 vs Intel Xeon X3470 Comparison

The Intel Xeon X3470 and AMD Athlon X4 840 are both end-of-life quad-core processors from different eras, yet their benchmark results place them in the same performance tier. The Xeon, a 2009 server part built on Intel's 45nm Nehalem architecture, and the Athlon, a 2014 desktop chip using AMD's 28nm Steamroller design, deliver nearly identical Cinebench scores. Across every test in the data, the Xeon X3470 edges out the Athlon X4 840 by margins of 0.6% to 0.8%, making this one of the closest head-to-head matchups in the database. Both CPUs hold a 26th percentile ranking among all processors, and their average benchmark scores (983 for Intel, 975 for AMD) place them alongside modern low-end Core i3 parts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon X3470 wins all five recorded benchmark comparisons, but the victories are remarkably narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 287 against the Athlon's 285, a 0.7% advantage. That gap widens slightly to 0.8% in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Xeon posts 1199 versus 1189 for the AMD chip. The single-core results tell the same story: the Xeon leads 169 to 168 in Cinebench R20 single-core (0.6% delta), and 403 to 400 in Cinebench R23 single-core (0.8% delta). The largest absolute difference appears in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Xeon's 2857 score tops the Athlon's 2833 by 24 points — again a 0.8% margin.

These results indicate that despite a five-year gap in release dates, the two processors offer essentially equivalent rendering performance. The Xeon's 8 threads (4 cores with Hyper-Threading) provide a theoretical advantage over the Athlon's 4 threads, but the Athlon compensates with higher clock speeds. The Athlon's base clock of 3.10 GHz and boost clock of 3.80 GHz both exceed the Xeon's 2.93 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. In practice, the benchmark deltas are so small that they fall within typical run-to-run variance. The data shows a consistent but marginal Intel victory, with no single test producing a decisive outcome.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon X3470 has an average benchmark score of 983, while the AMD Athlon X4 840 scores 975. That places the Xeon 0.8% higher on average, and the Xeon's nearest rival (the Intel Core i3-4370T) matches it exactly at 983, while the Athlon's nearest rival (the Intel Core i3-4130) matches its 975.

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

A: The Xeon X3470 leads in all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 287 versus 285 for the Athlon (0.7% faster). In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Xeon's 1199 beats the Athlon's 1189 (0.8% faster). The Cinebench R23 multicore result shows the Xeon at 2857 versus 2833 for the Athlon, also a 0.8% difference.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the AMD Athlon X4 840 wins?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Athlon X4 840 with zero wins across all five recorded Cinebench tests. The Xeon X3470 wins every comparison, though the largest winning margin is just 0.8%.

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences between these CPUs?

A: The AMD Athlon X4 840 uses a 28nm process with 2,411 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, manufactured by GlobalFoundries. The Intel Xeon X3470 uses a 45nm process with 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die, manufactured by Intel.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Xeon X3470 supports ECC memory, reflecting its server/workstation market segment. The AMD Athlon X4 840 does not support ECC, consistent with its desktop positioning.

Q: How do the cache configurations differ?

A: The Xeon X3470 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Athlon X4 840 has 256 KB of L1 cache total, 4 MB of L2 cache total, and no L3 cache at all.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different architectural approaches. The Intel Xeon X3470 uses the Nehalem architecture (codenamed Lynnfield) built on a 45nm process at Intel's foundry. It integrates 774 million transistors across a 296 mm² die. The AMD Athlon X4 840 uses the Steamroller architecture (codenamed Kaveri) built on a 28nm process at GlobalFoundries, packing 2,411 million transistors into a smaller 245 mm² die. The AMD chip's transistor count is more than three times higher, but it lacks the Xeon's shared L3 cache.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The Xeon offers a three-level cache design: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Athlon uses a two-level design with 256 KB of total L1 and 4 MB of total L2, with no L3 cache. This structural difference may explain why the Athlon stays competitive despite having half the threads. The Xeon's Hyper-Threading provides 8 threads from 4 cores, while the Athlon runs 4 threads on 4 cores. The Athlon compensates with higher clock speeds — 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost versus the Xeon's 2.93 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost.

Memory subsystems also differ. Both support dual-channel DDR3, but the Athlon's memory bandwidth is rated at 34.1 GB/s versus 21.3 GB/s for the Xeon. PCIe support favors the newer chip: the Athlon offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while the Xeon provides PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes. The Xeon's market segment is server/workstation, which explains its ECC memory support; the Athlon targets desktop use and omits ECC. The Athlon also has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the Xeon's multiplier is locked.

Specification Differences

The data reveals several clear specification differences between the two CPUs. The Intel Xeon X3470 has 8 threads versus 4 threads for the AMD Athlon X4 840. The Athlon runs at a higher base clock (3.10 GHz vs 2.93 GHz) and higher boost clock (3.80 GHz vs 3.60 GHz). Thermal design power differs substantially: the Xeon consumes 95W, while the Athlon draws only 65W. The sockets are incompatible — the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1156, the Athlon uses AMD Socket FM2+.

Process technology and manufacturing also differ: Intel uses 45nm with 774 million transistors and a 296 mm² die, while AMD uses 28nm with 2,411 million transistors and a 245 mm² die. Cache configurations diverge as noted: the Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3; the Athlon has 256 KB total L1 and 4 MB total L2 with no L3. Memory bandwidth favors the Athlon at 34.1 GB/s versus 21.3 GB/s. ECC memory support exists only on the Xeon. PCIe generation differs (Gen 2 for Intel, Gen 3 for AMD), though both provide 16 CPU lanes. The Athlon has an unlocked multiplier; the Xeon does not. Release dates are separated by nearly five years: the Xeon launched in September 2009, the Athlon in August 2014. The Xeon's launch MSRP was $589; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Athlon.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon X3470 wins every recorded benchmark, but the practical implications are limited by the tiny margins. The Xeon's advantages are most pronounced in multi-threaded workloads, where its 8 threads provide a consistent edge. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Xeon's 2857 score represents a 0.8% improvement over the Athlon's 2833. The Xeon also leads in single-core tests, though by similarly narrow margins. For users running heavily threaded applications — video encoding, 3D rendering, scientific computing — the Xeon's Hyper-Threading may offer slightly better scaling. ECC memory support makes the Xeon suitable for workstation and server environments where data integrity is critical. The 95W TDP suggests it can sustain higher sustained loads, though the Athlon's lower power draw may make it more attractive for compact builds.

The AMD Athlon X4 840, despite losing all head-to-head comparisons, has clear redeeming qualities. Its 65W TDP is significantly lower than the Xeon's 95W, making it the more power-efficient choice for everyday desktop use. The higher clock speeds (3.10 GHz base, 3.80 GHz boost) may translate to better responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks that don't scale across cores. The unlocked multiplier allows enthusiasts to push performance beyond stock levels, potentially closing or reversing the benchmark gap. The Athlon's 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is 60% higher than the Xeon's 21.3 GB/s, which could benefit memory-intensive applications. Its PCIe Gen 3 support offers greater I/O bandwidth for modern graphics cards and NVMe storage.

The data shows two processors that perform nearly identically in Cinebench, with the Xeon holding a razor-thin edge across all tests. The Xeon's server pedigree brings ECC support and 8 threads, while the Athlon counters with lower power consumption, higher clocks, and a modern manufacturing process. Neither chip wins decisively; the choice depends on platform compatibility and specific workload priorities. For multi-threaded rendering with ECC requirements, the Xeon's consistent — if marginal — wins make it the safer pick. For power-conscious desktop builds with overclocking ambitions, the Athlon's feature set offers a compelling alternative despite its benchmark deficit.