CPU Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clear but narrow picture: the AMD FX-4320 wins all five head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Xeon W3540, yet the margins are consistently slim. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the FX-4320 scores 269 versus 267 for the Xeon, a 0.7% advantage. That pattern repeats across every test, the largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the FX-4320 leads 378 to 374, a 1.1% edge. The FX-4320 also takes Cinebench R20 multi-core (1124 vs 1113, +1%) and single-core (158 vs 157, +0.6%), plus R23 multi-core (2677 vs 2652, +0.9%).

The practical takeaway is that neither processor dominates in a meaningful way for most workloads. The FX-4320's wins are consistent but marginal, suggesting that in real-world use, the two would feel nearly identical in tasks that rely on these Cinebench patterns. The FX-4320 holds a slight edge in both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering, so it wins across the board, but the deltas are too small to call it a generational leap. For users prioritizing raw benchmark scores, the FX-4320 is the nominal choice; for those who value platform features like ECC memory, the Xeon W3540 offers capabilities the AMD part lacks, even if it loses every benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different eras and design philosophies. The AMD FX-4320 uses the Piledriver architecture, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 315 mm² and 1,200 million transistors. It is a desktop part with 4 cores and 4 threads, no simultaneous multithreading, and a base clock of 4.00 GHz that boosts to 4.20 GHz. The Intel Xeon W3540, by contrast, uses the older Nehalem architecture (codename Bloomfield), fabricated on Intel's 45 nm node, with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. It is a server/workstation chip with 4 cores but 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, running at a lower 2.93 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The FX-4320 has 192 KB of L1, 4 MB of L2, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon W3540 provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a larger 8 MB shared L3. The Xeon's larger L3 cache is a notable advantage for workloads with high cache reuse, but its lower clocks and older architecture offset that in the benchmarks. Memory support also diverges: both use DDR3, but the FX-4320 runs dual-channel with a rated bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the Xeon W3540 uses triple-channel memory (no bandwidth figure is given in the data). The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the FX-4320 does not. Both use PCIe Gen 2, and neither has integrated graphics, though the FX-4320's platform can enable graphics via a chipset feature on certain motherboards.

The FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier, making it a candidate for overclocking, while the Xeon W3540's multiplier is locked. The production status for both is end-of-life, and the FX-4320 was released in October 2012, while the Xeon launched in March 2009, a gap of over three years that explains the FX-4320's process advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core rendering benchmarks?

A: The AMD FX-4320 wins all multi-core tests, but by very small margins. In Cinebench R15, it scores 269 versus 267 (a 0.7% lead); in R20, 1124 versus 1113 (+1%); and in R23, 2677 versus 2652 (+0.9%).

Q: Does the Intel Xeon W3540 have any advantage in single-threaded performance?

A: No. The FX-4320 wins single-core tests as well, with a 0.6% lead in Cinebench R20 (158 vs 157) and a 1.1% lead in R23 (378 vs 374).

Q: How do their thread counts differ, and does it matter?

A: The FX-4320 has 4 threads, while the Xeon W3540 has 8 threads via Hyper-Threading. Despite the Xeon's extra threads, the FX-4320 still posts higher multi-core scores, indicating that the FX-4320's higher clock speeds compensate for the lack of SMT.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon W3540 supports ECC memory. The AMD FX-4320 does not list ECC support.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life products. The FX-4320 launched in October 2012, and the Xeon W3540 in March 2009.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each CPU relative to all CPUs?

A: The FX-4320 has an average benchmark score of 921 and sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon W3540 averages 913 and sits at the 24th percentile, placing both near the bottom quartile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every major specification, reflecting their different market segments and release dates. The FX-4320 is a desktop part with 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon W3540 is a server/workstation chip with 4 cores and 8 threads. Clock speeds favor the AMD chip: 4.00 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost versus 2.93 GHz and 3.20 GHz for the Intel part. TDP also differs significantly: the FX-4320 draws 95 W, while the Xeon W3540 draws 130 W.

Process technology separates them further: the FX-4320 uses a 32 nm node from GlobalFoundries, while the Xeon W3540 uses Intel's 45 nm node. Transistor counts and die sizes reflect this: 1,200 million transistors on 315 mm² for the FX-4320, versus 731 million on 263 mm² for the Xeon. Cache layouts are different as well, the FX-4320 has 192 KB L1, 4 MB L2, and 4 MB shared L3; the Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3.

Memory channels split the two: the FX-4320 runs dual-channel DDR3 with a stated 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon W3540 runs triple-channel DDR3 with no bandwidth figure provided. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. Sockets differ (AM3+ versus Socket 1366), and the FX-4320 has an unlocked multiplier while the Xeon's is locked. The FX-4320 lists integrated graphics as a chipset feature on certain motherboards; the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed. Release dates are also distinct: October 2012 for the FX-4320 versus March 2009 for the Xeon.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform in outcome but varied in magnitude. Starting with Cinebench R15 multi-core, the FX-4320 scores 269 against the Xeon's 267, a 0.7% margin. That is the smallest win for AMD. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the FX-4320 extends its lead slightly to 1% with 1124 versus 1113. The single-core tests show similar patterns: R20 single-core gives the FX-4320 a 158-to-157 win (0.6%), and R23 single-core gives the largest margin at 378 versus 374 (1.1%). The R23 multi-core test falls in between with 2677 versus 2652 (0.9%).

The story these numbers tell is one of consistency without dominance. The FX-4320 wins all five tests, but the largest delta is just 1.1%. For context, the FX-4320's nearest rivals in the overall database include the AMD PRO A10-9700E (average score 919, delta 0.2%) and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G (919, +0.2%), while the Xeon W3540's closest competitors include the Intel Pentium Gold G6405T (915, -0.2%) and the AMD PRO A12-9800E (910, +0.3%). Both CPUs cluster around the same average performance tier, with the FX-4320's 921 average sitting just 8 points above the Xeon's 913.

The Xeon's higher thread count (8 versus 4) does not translate into a multi-core advantage in these tests. That suggests the FX-4320's 4.00 GHz base clock, over a gigahertz higher than the Xeon's 2.93 GHz, more than compensates for the missing SMT. Similarly, the Xeon's larger 8 MB L3 cache fails to overcome the clock deficit. The FX-4320's wins are real but narrow; a user upgrading from one to the other would not notice a difference in Cinebench-style workloads. The Xeon's triple-channel memory and ECC support are platform-level features that matter for specific server use cases, but they do not show up in these rendering benchmarks. Overall, the data positions the FX-4320 as the faster processor in this pairing, but only by a hair.