AMD Athlon X4 845 vs Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 Comparison

The data presents a clear, if unexpected, picture: the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 and the AMD Athlon X4 845 are nearly identical in overall performance, yet they achieve this parity through radically different designs. The Intel part, a server-grade Haswell-EP chip, wins every single head-to-head benchmark, but the margins are consistently narrow, and the two processors occupy the same 31st percentile of all CPUs. The Athlon X4 845, a desktop Excavator part, is not the underdog its lower core count suggests; it is simply a different kind of processor that happens to land in the same performance tier.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 is the outright winner in every measured category. It leads the AMD Athlon X4 845 by a remarkably consistent margin of roughly 19% across all five Cinebench tests, from single-core to multi-core workloads. If the sole criterion is raw Cinebench score, the Xeon is the superior processor. However, the data also reveals that this victory is purely numerical. Both chips have an identical average benchmark score of approximately 1109 and 1106, respectively, and both sit at the 31st percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are statistically equivalent in the broader performance landscape. The Xeon’s wins are real but narrow, with deltas of 19.1% to 19.5% in its favor.

The choice between them, therefore, is not about which is faster—the data consistently says the Xeon—but about which platform constraints matter more. The Xeon E5-2609 v3 is a server/workstation part with a launch MSRP of $306, designed for the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform. It brings 6 cores, 6 threads, and a massive 15 MB of shared L3 cache, along with support for ECC memory and a quad-channel DDR4 memory bus. The Athlon X4 845 is a desktop part for the AMD Socket FM2+ platform, offering 4 cores and 4 threads, a higher base clock, and a much smaller 2 MB L2 cache with no L3. It is the better choice for a user building on an FM2+ board who wants an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, as the data shows it is competitive despite its architectural differences. The Xeon is the pick for a workstation build where ECC memory and quad-channel bandwidth are non-negotiable, even if its clock speed is lower.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental gap between these two processors is a generational and philosophical one. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 is built on Intel’s 22 nm Haswell-EP architecture, a design intended for servers and workstations. It features 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 1900 MHz and no boost clock. Its cache hierarchy is substantial: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a large 15 MB shared L3 cache. This is a chip designed to handle large, complex datasets, which is reflected in its memory support for DDR4 across a quad-channel bus, delivering a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for data integrity in server environments.

In contrast, the AMD Athlon X4 845 is built on GlobalFoundries’ 28 nm process using the Excavator architecture, specifically the Carrizo generation. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Its cache configuration is simpler: 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. The memory support is DDR3 on a dual-channel bus, yielding 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth—about two-thirds of the Xeon’s capacity—and it does not support ECC memory. The transistor counts are also telling: the Xeon has 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die, while the Athlon has 3,100 million transistors on a smaller 250 mm² die. The AMD chip is denser, but the Intel chip is designed for a different class of workload, prioritizing cache and memory throughput over raw clock speed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The average scores are nearly identical. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1109, while the AMD Athlon X4 845 has an average of 1106. The difference is negligible, putting them in the same performance class.

Q: Does the AMD Athlon X4 845 have a higher clock speed?

A: Yes, the AMD part has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has a fixed base clock of 1900 MHz with no boost capability.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 supports ECC memory. The AMD Athlon X4 845 does not, making the Xeon the appropriate choice for error-correcting workloads.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 offers a quad-channel DDR4 memory bus with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Athlon X4 845 has a dual-channel DDR3 bus with 34.1 GB/s, which is significantly lower.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD Athlon X4 845 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Is the AMD Athlon X4 845 overclockable?

A: Yes, the AMD Athlon X4 845 has an unlocked multiplier, as indicated by its data. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key areas where the two processors diverge, based solely on the provided data. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 is a server/workstation chip with a larger core count and memory subsystem, while the AMD Athlon X4 845 is a desktop chip with higher clocks and an unlocked multiplier.

• Cores/Threads: Intel has 6/6, AMD has 4/4.
• Base Clock: Intel at 1900 MHz, AMD at 3500 MHz.
• Boost Clock: Intel has none, AMD has 3800 MHz.
• TDP: Intel is 85 W, AMD is 65 W.
• Socket: Intel uses Socket 2011-3, AMD uses Socket FM2+.
• Process Node: Intel is 22 nm, AMD is 28 nm.
• Transistors: Intel has 2,600 million, AMD has 3,100 million.
• Die Size: Intel is 356 mm², AMD is 250 mm².
• L1 Cache: Intel has 64 KB per core, AMD has 320 KB total.
• L2 Cache: Intel has 256 KB per core, AMD has 2 MB total.
• L3 Cache: Intel has 15 MB shared, AMD has none.
• Memory Support: Intel uses DDR4, AMD uses DDR3.
• Memory Bus: Intel is quad-channel, AMD is dual-channel.
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel is 51.2 GB/s, AMD is 34.1 GB/s.
• ECC Memory: Intel supports it, AMD does not.
• PCIe Lanes: Intel has 40 lanes (CPU only), AMD has 8 lanes (CPU only).
• Market Segment: Intel is Server/Workstation, AMD is Desktop.
• Multiplier Unlocked: Intel is false, AMD is true.
• Launch MSRP: Intel is $306, AMD has no listed MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 wins all five Cinebench tests, with a margin that hovers just under 20% in every instance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 386 against the Athlon’s 324, a 19.1% advantage. The story repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon’s 1611 beats the Athlon’s 1350 by 19.3%. The single-core tests tell the same tale, with the Xeon leading 227 to 190 in R20 single-core (a 19.5% delta) and 541 to 453 in R23 single-core (a 19.4% delta). The largest absolute gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon scores 3836 versus the Athlon’s 3215, a difference of 621 points.

The consistency of these margins is the most striking feature. A 19% lead in both single-core and multi-core suggests that the Intel architecture’s advantages—likely its larger cache and superior memory bandwidth—translate into a uniform performance uplift across all threaded workloads. It is not a case of the Xeon being better in one specific scenario; it is better in every scenario measured. The AMD Athlon X4 845, despite its higher clock speed, cannot overcome the Xeon’s architectural edge. The data shows that the Xeon’s 6 cores and 15 MB of L3 cache provide a decisive advantage over the Athlon’s 4 cores and 2 MB of L2, even when the Athlon is running at nearly double the base clock speed.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark results, the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 wins in every measured performance category. It is the superior choice for any application that relies on Cinebench-style rendering workloads, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. The data suggests that the Xeon’s larger core count and massive L3 cache make it better suited for tasks that can utilize its 6 threads, while its higher memory bandwidth and ECC support make it the only option here for serious workstation or server use cases where data integrity and memory throughput are paramount. The Xeon is the pick for a professional environment that values stability and error correction over raw clock speed.

The AMD Athlon X4 845, while losing every benchmark, is not without its own domain. Its unlocked multiplier is a significant feature that the Xeon lacks, indicating that it is intended for enthusiasts who plan to overclock. Its lower TDP of 65 W versus the Xeon’s 85 W suggests it may be easier to cool in a compact desktop build. Furthermore, its higher base and boost clocks imply that in lightly threaded, non-Cinebench tasks that are not bound by cache or memory bandwidth, it could potentially feel more responsive, though the data does not confirm this. The Athlon is the logical choice for a user building a budget-friendly desktop on the FM2+ platform who prioritizes overclocking headroom and lower power consumption over the Xeon’s multi-core and server-oriented features. In this comparison, the Xeon wins the benchmarks, but the Athlon wins on platform flexibility and overclocking potential.