CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon W3580 and AMD FX-8320E are both end-of-life processors that land in the same performance percentile, yet they achieve that status through fundamentally different designs and benchmark strengths. The data shows the Xeon W3580, a 2009 server/workstation part, is the superior choice for legacy multi-threaded workstation tasks using Cinebench, while the AMD FX-8320E, a 2014 desktop chip, offers a more balanced profile with a significant single-thread advantage in Geekbench and a lower thermal envelope. Neither chip dominates outright; instead, the choice hinges entirely on which benchmark suite matches the user’s workload.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results reveal a clear division of labor. The Intel Xeon W3580 wins exclusively in multi-threaded rendering workloads, as measured by Cinebench. Its scores of 311 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 1298 in R20 multi-core, and 3092 in R23 multi-core reflect a strong, consistent showing for a 4-core, 8-thread Nehalem part. These are the only head-to-head comparisons available, and the Xeon wins all of them.

The AMD FX-8320E, conversely, wins in Geekbench, which is a more general-purpose benchmark. It scores 1681 in Geekbench multi-core and 437 in Geekbench single-core. The single-core score is particularly notable, as it edges out the Xeon’s Cinebench R23 single-core score of 436 by a single point, though the tests are not directly comparable. The FX-8320E’s wins are in a benchmark that measures a broader set of everyday computing scenarios, including memory and integer operations, whereas the Xeon’s wins are strictly in sustained multi-threaded rendering.

The practical takeaway: for users running Cinebench-heavy workloads like 3D rendering or video encoding that scale across many threads, the Xeon W3580 is the stronger performer. For users whose workloads resemble the mixed integer, floating-point, and memory patterns of Geekbench, the FX-8320E is the better fit. The two chips are in the same overall percentile (29 for both), but they get there by opposite routes.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon W3580 is built on the Nehalem architecture, specifically the Bloomfield codename, using a 45 nm process node from Intel’s own foundry. It packs 731 million transistors into a 263 mm² die. Its cache layout is per-core: 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus a shared 8 MB L3 cache. It supports triple-channel DDR3 memory and includes ECC memory support, a hallmark of its server/workstation market segment. The socket is Intel Socket 1366, and it runs at a base clock of 3.33 GHz with a boost clock of 3.60 GHz.

The AMD FX-8320E is a completely different beast. It uses the Piledriver architecture with the Vishera codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It has 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The cache structure is larger overall: 384 KB of L1, 8 MB of L2, and 8 MB of shared L3. It supports dual-channel DDR3 memory and does not support ECC. The socket is AMD Socket AM3+, and the chip runs at a base clock of 3.20 GHz with a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. Notably, the FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon W3580 does not.

The most significant architectural difference is the core count: the FX-8320E has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon W3580 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This means the AMD chip relies on physical cores, while the Intel chip uses Hyper-Threading to reach 8 threads. The process node advantage goes to AMD (32 nm vs 45 nm), which likely contributes to its lower 95 W TDP versus the Xeon’s 130 W TDP. The FX-8320E also lists integrated graphics as a chipset feature on certain motherboards, whereas the Xeon has none.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data provides three direct comparison points, all from Cinebench, and the Intel Xeon W3580 wins each one. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 311. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 1298. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 3092. These are the only head-to-head benchmark results available, and they are unanimous in favor of the Xeon.

To interpret these scores, consider the Xeon’s nearest rivals. Its average benchmark score is 1064, which places it within 0.3% of the AMD Opteron 4376 HE (score 1061) and 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-2380P (score 1063). The Xeon’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 3092 is a strong result for a chip from 2009, suggesting its older architecture still handles rendering workloads effectively. The FX-8320E, with an average benchmark score of 1059, sits 0.2% behind the Intel Core i7-2760QM (score 1057) and 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 2500U (score 1058). Its Geekbench multi-core score of 1681 and single-core score of 437 are the only benchmark data points for this chip, but they indicate a capable all-rounder.

The absence of Geekbench results for the Xeon and the absence of Cinebench results for the FX-8320E means a direct comparison across suites is impossible. What the data does show is that the Xeon is a rendering specialist, while the FX-8320E is a generalist. The Xeon’s 3092 in Cinebench R23 multi-core is its headline number, while the FX-8320E’s 1681 in Geekbench multi-core is its best showing.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ on nearly every specification that matters. The core count is the most obvious: 4 cores for Intel versus 8 cores for AMD. Threads are equal at 8, but the Xeon achieves this via Hyper-Threading, while the FX-8320E uses native cores. The base clock favors Intel (3.33 GHz vs 3.20 GHz), but the boost clock favors AMD (4.00 GHz vs 3.60 GHz). The TDP is a major split: 130 W for the Xeon versus 95 W for the FX-8320E, making the AMD part significantly more power-efficient.

The process node also differs: 45 nm for Intel versus 32 nm for AMD. Transistor counts are 731 million versus 1,200 million, and die sizes are 263 mm² versus 315 mm². Cache configurations are distinct: the Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, while the FX-8320E has 384 KB L1 total and 8 MB L2 total. Both share 8 MB L3. Memory support is triple-channel DDR3 for Intel and dual-channel DDR3 for AMD, with the FX-8320E explicitly listing a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the FX-8320E. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2, as does the FX-8320E. The FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier; the Xeon does not. The market segments differ: Server/Workstation for Intel, Desktop for AMD. The release dates are five years apart: August 2009 for the Xeon, September 2014 for the FX-8320E.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has 8 physical cores, while the Intel Xeon W3580 has 4 physical cores with 8 threads via Hyper-Threading.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The AMD FX-8320E boosts to 4.00 GHz, while the Intel Xeon W3580 boosts to 3.60 GHz, a 0.40 GHz advantage for AMD.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon W3580 supports ECC memory, while the AMD FX-8320E does not.

Q: What are the Cinebench R23 multi-core scores?

A: The Intel Xeon W3580 scores 3092 in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The AMD FX-8320E has no Cinebench R23 result in the data.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon W3580 has a TDP of 130 W, while the AMD FX-8320E has a TDP of 95 W.

Q: Which chip has an unlocked multiplier?

A: The AMD FX-8320E has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel Xeon W3580 does not.

Q: What is the memory bus configuration?

A: The Intel Xeon W3580 uses triple-channel memory, while the AMD FX-8320E uses dual-channel memory.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation based on workload. For users running Cinebench-based rendering tasks, the Intel Xeon W3580 is the definitive choice. Its multi-core scores, 311 in R15, 1298 in R20, and 3092 in R23, all come from the same benchmark family and show consistent strength. The Xeon also offers ECC memory support and triple-channel bandwidth, features suited to its server/workstation heritage. Its 130 W TDP is high, but for a workstation that rarely moves, this is a non-issue.

For users who prioritize a balanced desktop experience, the AMD FX-8320E is the better pick. Its Geekbench scores of 1681 multi-core and 437 single-core demonstrate solid all-around performance. The 4.00 GHz boost clock, 8 physical cores, and unlocked multiplier give it flexibility for overclocking and general multitasking. Its 95 W TDP makes it far easier to cool and power than the Xeon. The lack of ECC is a drawback for data-integrity-critical tasks, but the FX-8320E is aimed at desktops, not servers.

The percentile rankings are identical at 29, meaning both chips sit at the same performance tier among all CPUs. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical too: 1064 for the Xeon versus 1059 for the FX-8320E. The decision is therefore not about which is faster overall, but which benchmark suite matters more to the user. The Xeon wins every Cinebench test; the FX-8320E wins Geekbench. Pick the Xeon for rendering, the FX-8320E for everything else.