AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 Comparison

The AMD FX-8350 and Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 represent two very different approaches to multi-threaded computing. The FX-8350 is a desktop part from 2012 with eight physical cores, while the Xeon E3-1240L v5 is a low-power server processor from 2015 with four cores and eight threads. The database records an average benchmark score of 1557 for the FX and 1609 for the Xeon, placing both at the 39th percentile among all CPUs. This analysis examines the recorded specifications and benchmark results to determine which processor suits which workload.

The Verdict

Strictly from the recorded data, the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 holds the higher average benchmark score: 1609 versus 1557 for the AMD FX-8350. Both processors sit at the 39th percentile in the global CPU distribution, meaning they are statistically equivalent in overall standing. The Xeon achieves this with a 25W TDP and four cores, while the FX uses 125W and eight cores. The Xeon's efficiency is remarkable: it delivers a higher average score while consuming one-fifth the power budget. For workloads that rely on the Xeon's recorded Cinebench results, the multi-threaded scaling is strong, with the R23 multicore score of 5564 standing out. The FX's only recorded benchmarks are Geekbench scores, with a multicore result of 2551 and a single-core result of 563. The data suggests the Xeon is the better choice for power-sensitive environments, server duties, or any task where the higher average score matters. The FX, however, offers more physical cores and a higher base clock, which may appeal to users who prioritize raw core count over efficiency. The verdict is clear: the Xeon E3-1240L v5 is the superior performer according to the database, but the FX-8350 remains a viable option for those who need eight physical cores and can tolerate higher power draw.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The FX-8350 uses AMD's Piledriver architecture on a 32nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 1,200 million transistors on a 315 mm² die. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 uses Intel's Skylake architecture on a 14nm process, with 1,750 million transistors on a much smaller 122 mm² die. The FX has eight cores and eight threads, while the Xeon has four cores and eight threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to reach the same thread count. Clock speeds differ significantly: the FX runs at 4.00 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost, while the Xeon runs at 2.10 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. The FX's higher clocks are offset by its older architecture and higher power draw.

Cache layouts also diverge. The FX has a 384 KB L1 cache, an 8 MB L2 cache, and an 8 MB shared L3 cache. The Xeon has a 64 KB per-core L1 cache, a 256 KB per-core L2 cache (totaling 1 MB across four cores), and an 8 MB shared L3 cache. The FX's larger L2 cache is a legacy of its design, but the Xeon's per-core L2 is more efficient for its thread count. Memory support differs: the FX supports only DDR3 with dual-channel bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with a higher dual-channel bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability, while the FX does not. PCIe connectivity is another split: the FX uses Gen 2, while the Xeon uses Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes. The FX has integrated graphics available on certain motherboards as a chipset feature, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. The FX is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon is a server/workstation part with a locked multiplier. Release dates are 2012-10-22 for the FX and 2015-10-18 for the Xeon. The FX had a launch MSRP of $199, while the Xeon had a launch MSRP of $278.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no overlapping benchmark tests between the two processors. The FX-8350 has only Geekbench results: a multicore score of 2551 and a single-core score of 563. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 has only Cinebench results: R15 multicore 560, R15 single-core 78, R20 multicore 2336, R20 single-core 329, R23 multicore 5564, and R23 single-core 785. Without a common test, direct comparison relies on the average benchmark score, which the Xeon leads with 1609 versus 1557. The Xeon's Cinebench scores show a clear progression across versions: the R23 multicore score of 5564 is more than double the R20 score of 2336, and the R20 score is more than four times the R15 score. This scaling reflects the Xeon's ability to handle multi-threaded workloads efficiently. The FX's Geekbench multicore score of 2551 is its strongest recorded result, but it cannot be directly compared to the Xeon's Cinebench numbers. The average benchmark score, which aggregates all recorded tests, gives the Xeon a 52-point advantage (1609 vs 1557), though the exact percentage is not recorded. Both processors share the same 39th percentile ranking, indicating that their overall performance is similar in the broader CPU landscape. The data shows that the Xeon's efficiency and higher average score make it the stronger candidate in the absence of direct head-to-head tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD FX-8350 has 8 physical cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 has 4 physical cores and 8 threads.

Q: Does the Xeon E3-1240L v5 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E3-1240L v5 supports ECC memory, whereas the FX-8350 does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The FX-8350 has a TDP of 125W, while the Xeon E3-1240L v5 has a TDP of 25W, making the Xeon far more power-efficient.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Xeon E3-1240L v5 has an average benchmark score of 1609, compared to 1557 for the FX-8350.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Xeon E3-1240L v5 uses a 14nm process, while the FX-8350 uses a 32nm process.

Q: Is the FX-8350's multiplier unlocked?

A: Yes, the FX-8350 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon E3-1240L v5 does not.

Where Each One Wins

The FX-8350 wins on raw core count, offering 8 physical cores versus the Xeon's 4. It also has higher clock speeds: 4.00 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost, compared to the Xeon's 2.10 GHz and 3.20 GHz. The FX's larger L2 cache (8 MB) and its unlocked multiplier make it a candidate for overclocking and multi-threaded workloads that scale with core count. Its launch MSRP of $199 is lower than the Xeon's $278, though pricing is not a factor in performance analysis. The FX is a desktop part, so it may be more accessible for consumer builds.

The Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins on efficiency, with a 25W TDP versus 125W, and on memory flexibility, supporting both DDR3 and DDR4. It offers ECC memory support, a critical feature for data integrity in server environments. Its PCIe Gen 3 interface provides higher bandwidth than the FX's Gen 2. The Xeon's average benchmark score of 1609 is higher, and its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 5564 demonstrates strong multi-threaded performance despite having only four physical cores. The Xeon's smaller die (122 mm²) and newer 14nm process contribute to its efficiency. For server/workstation tasks, the Xeon is the clear winner. For desktop users who prioritize core count and overclocking, the FX-8350 holds an edge.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD FX-8350 | Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 4 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 4.00 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 25 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM3+ | Intel Socket 1151 |

| Architecture | Piledriver | Skylake |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,200 million | 1,750 million |

| Die Size | 315 mm² | 122 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 384 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 8 MB | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR3, DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 29.9 GB/s | 34.1 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2012-10-22 | 2015-10-18 |

| Launch MSRP | $199 | $278 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | FD8350FRW8KHKFD8350FRHKBOX | SR2LN |