AMD Athlon X4 970 vs Intel Xeon W-2195 Comparison

Intel Xeon W-2195 and AMD Athlon X4 970 occupy opposite ends of the processor spectrum, yet both land in the 63rd percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon W-2195 is an 18-core Skylake-W workstation part with a 140 W TDP, while the Athlon X4 970 is a 4-core Excavator desktop chip with a 65 W TDP. Benchmark data shows the Xeon dominating every shared test, with margins exceeding 670% in Cinebench workloads, but the Athlon counters with a much lower power envelope and a different socket ecosystem.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2195 has 18 cores and 36 threads. The AMD Athlon X4 970 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon W-2195 has an average benchmark score of 6892, while the Athlon X4 970 scores 6850. The delta between them is 0.6% in favor of the Xeon.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in head-to-head testing?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Xeon W-2195 scores 1412 versus the Athlon's 182, a 675.8% difference.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon W-2195 supports ECC memory, while the Athlon X4 970 does not.

Q: What are their respective process nodes?

A: The Xeon W-2195 is built on a 14 nm process by Intel. The Athlon X4 970 uses a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Xeon W-2195 boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the Athlon X4 970 boosts to 4.00 GHz. However, the Athlon has a higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 2.30 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is substantial. The Xeon W-2195 uses Intel's Skylake-W architecture on a 14 nm node, featuring 18 cores and 36 threads. Its die size is 484 mm². The Athlon X4 970 relies on AMD's Excavator architecture (Bristol Ridge) on a 28 nm node, with 4 cores and 4 threads on a 250 mm² die. The transistor count for the Athlon is listed at 3,100 million, while the Xeon's transistor count is not specified in the data.

Cache hierarchies differ markedly. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 24.75 MB L3 cache. The Athlon offers 320 KB of L1 total, 2 MB of L2 total, and no L3 cache at all. This lack of L3 on the Athlon is a significant architectural disadvantage for workloads that benefit from large shared caches.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The Xeon W-2195 supports quad-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The Athlon X4 970 supports dual-channel DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe lane counts differ as well: the Xeon provides 48 Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the Athlon provides 8 Gen 3 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon's socket is Intel Socket 2066, and the Athlon uses AMD Socket AM4.

Production status and release dates are close but not identical. The Xeon W-2195 was released on 2017-08-28 and is now end-of-life. The Athlon X4 970 was released on 2017-07-26 and remains active in production. The Xeon targets the server/workstation segment, while the Athlon is a desktop part. Neither processor has integrated graphics, and both have locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and platform priorities. For multi-threaded, server-class or workstation-class workloads, the Xeon W-2195 is the only viable choice. It wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with margins ranging from 673.1% to 675.8%. The 18-core, 36-thread configuration delivers Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 23828 versus the Athlon's 3081. The Xeon also offers quad-channel memory, ECC support, and 48 PCIe lanes, all of which are absent from the Athlon.

For single-threaded performance, the Xeon still wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 3363 against the Athlon's 435, a 673.1% advantage. Even in R20 single-core, the Xeon's 1412 dwarfs the Athlon's 182. The Athlon's higher base clock of 3.80 GHz does not translate into competitive single-thread results against the Xeon's Skylake architecture.

The Athlon X4 970 makes sense only in a narrow context. It uses less than half the power (65 W TDP versus 140 W), fits in the AM4 socket, and is still in active production. For a basic desktop system where the workload is light and the platform cost is paramount, the Athlon's 4 cores and 4 threads are sufficient. However, the benchmark data shows it trails the Xeon in every measured category, and its average score of 6850 is essentially tied with the Xeon's 6892 despite the massive core count difference.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon W-2195 | AMD Athlon X4 970 |

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

| Cores | 18 | 4 |

| Threads | 36 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 140 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2066 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Excavator |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Die Size | 484 mm² | 250 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 320 KB |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB |

| L3 Cache | 24.75 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 85.3 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 3, 48 Lanes | Gen 3, 8 Lanes |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2017-08-28 | 2017-07-26 |

The launch MSRP for the Xeon W-2195 is $2553. The Athlon X4 970 has no launch MSRP listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent and overwhelming advantage for the Xeon W-2195 across all five shared Cinebench tests. The wins are not marginal; they are structural. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2401 against the Athlon's 310, a 674.5% delta. This pattern repeats in R20 multi-core, where the Xeon's 10007 surpasses the Athlon's 1294 by 673.3%.

Single-core results are equally lopsided. The Xeon W-2195 posts 1412 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus the Athlon's 182, a 675.8% difference. In R23 single-core, the Xeon's 3363 beats the Athlon's 435 by 673.1%. The R23 multi-core test shows the Xeon at 23828 and the Athlon at 3081, a 673.4% gap.

The Athlon X4 970 has no wins in the head-to-head comparison. The win count is 5 for the Xeon and 0 for the Athlon. Notably, the Athlon has additional benchmark data for Passmark tests, but the Xeon does not have corresponding scores in those tests, so no direct comparison is possible there. The Athlon's Passmark results include a data compression score of 62454, an encryption score of 1146, and a floating point math score of 6049, but these stand alone without Xeon equivalents.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W-2195 wins in every measured multi-core and single-core Cinebench scenario. Its 18 cores and 36 threads provide a massive parallel throughput advantage, reflected in the 674.5% R15 multi-core margin and the 673.4% R23 multi-core margin. For rendering, video encoding, scientific computing, or any workload that scales with core count, the Xeon's lead is insurmountable based on this data. The 24.75 MB shared L3 cache and quad-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth further support memory-intensive server and workstation tasks.

The Athlon X4 970 wins in no benchmark comparison where both processors have scores. However, it has qualitative advantages that are visible in the specification data. Its 65 W TDP is less than half the Xeon's 140 W, making it suitable for systems with modest cooling and power delivery. Its AM4 socket is a mainstream desktop platform, while the Xeon requires Intel Socket 2066. The Athlon's 4.00 GHz boost clock is close to the Xeon's 4.30 GHz, but the actual benchmark results show the Xeon still leads single-core by over 670%, indicating that clock speed alone does not bridge the architectural gap.

The Athlon's active production status versus the Xeon's end-of-life status is another differentiator. For new system builds requiring an active part, the Athlon is available, while the Xeon is legacy hardware. The Athlon also offers a 250 mm² die with 3,100 million transistors, but the Xeon's 484 mm² die is larger and presumably more complex. The Athlon's lack of L3 cache and ECC support, combined with dual-channel memory and 8 PCIe lanes, clearly positions it for entry-level desktop use rather than workstation duties.