AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking fact in the data is that these two processors land on exactly the same average benchmark score: 1,557. The `nearestRivals` table confirms this with a deltaPct of 0 between the AMD FX-8350 and the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5. Both CPUs also share the same percentile rank of 39 among all CPUs, meaning they sit at the same point in the overall performance distribution. This is a rare case where two chips from different eras, different architectures, and different market segments converge on identical aggregate performance.

However, the available benchmark data is asymmetrical. The AMD FX-8350 has only Geekbench scores: 2,551 in multicore and 563 in singlecore. The Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5, by contrast, has a full suite of Cinebench results. This means a direct apples-to-apples comparison on identical workloads is impossible from the FACT PACK. What the data does show is that the FX-8350’s multicore Geekbench score of 2,551 is roughly 4.5 times its own singlecore score of 563, indicating strong scaling across its eight cores. The Xeon’s Cinebench R23 scores of 5,383 multicore and 760 singlecore show a ratio of about 7.1, suggesting even more efficient multi-threaded scaling relative to its single-thread performance.

The Xeon E3-1268L v5’s Cinebench R15 multicore score of 542 and singlecore score of 76 produce a ratio of roughly 7.1 as well, consistent with the R23 results. Its Cinebench R20 numbers are 2,260 multicore and 319 singlecore, again a ratio near 7.1. This consistency across three different Cinebench versions points to a stable scaling pattern. The FX-8350, with eight physical cores and eight threads, should theoretically scale better than a four-core, eight-thread part, yet the data does not include any Cinebench scores for the AMD chip to verify that hypothesis.

The absence of head-to-head benchmark entries in the FACT PACK is itself a finding. There are no direct comparison scores where both CPUs ran the same test. The only common metric is the average benchmark score of 1,557 for both, which is derived from different test suites. This suggests the aggregate number masks significant behavioral differences that a direct comparison would reveal.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: Neither. Both the AMD FX-8350 and the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 have an identical average benchmark score of 1,557, with a deltaPct of 0 between them.

Q: How do the Geekbench scores compare between the two?

A: The FX-8350 has Geekbench multicore and singlecore scores of 2,551 and 563, respectively. The Xeon E3-1268L v5 has no Geekbench scores in the FACT PACK, so no direct comparison is possible.

Q: What does the Xeon’s Cinebench R23 performance indicate?

A: The Xeon scores 5,383 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 760 in singlecore. The multicore result is about 7.1 times the singlecore result, showing strong multi-threaded scaling.

Q: Are both CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD FX-8350 and the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 are at the 39th percentile among all CPUs. They also share the same average score of 1,557.

Q: Which CPU has more physical cores?

A: The AMD FX-8350 has 8 physical cores and 8 threads. The Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 has 4 physical cores and 8 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to reach the same thread count.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speeds?

A: The FX-8350 has a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, while the Xeon E3-1268L v5 boosts to 3.40 GHz. The AMD part’s base clock is 4.00 GHz, compared to the Xeon’s 2.40 GHz base.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is substantial. The AMD FX-8350 uses the Piledriver architecture on the Vishera codename, built on a 32 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 1,200 million transistors into a 315 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 uses the Skylake architecture with the Skylake-DT codename, manufactured on a 14 nm process by Intel. It contains 1,750 million transistors on a much smaller 122 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: Intel packs roughly 46% more transistors into less than 40% of the die area.

The FX-8350’s cache layout is also distinct. It has a 384 KB L1 cache and an 8 MB L2 cache, plus an 8 MB shared L3 cache. The Xeon E3-1268L v5 has smaller per-core caches: 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, but the same 8 MB shared L3. With four cores, the Xeon’s total L2 is only 1 MB, versus the FX-8350’s 8 MB. However, the Xeon compensates with a newer cache hierarchy and a more efficient 14 nm process.

Memory support differs as well. The FX-8350 supports only DDR3 memory over a dual-channel bus, yielding 29.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon E3-1268L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, also dual-channel, but with a higher memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the FX-8350, reflecting its server/workstation positioning.

The integrated graphics situation is also different. The FX-8350 has no on-die GPU; graphics depend on the motherboard chipset. The Xeon includes HD Graphics P530 as integrated graphics. PCIe support is another differentiator: the FX-8350 is limited to Gen 2, while the Xeon offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are a primary difference: the FX-8350 has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon E3-1268L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Clock speeds are also far apart. The FX-8350 runs at 4.00 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost. The Xeon is much lower at 2.40 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. This gives the AMD part a significant clock-speed advantage, though the Intel part’s newer architecture likely compensates in instructions per clock.

Thermal design power is a major differentiator. The FX-8350 has a TDP of 125 watts, while the Xeon E3-1268L v5 is rated at just 35 watts. That is a 90-watt difference, making the Xeon far more power-efficient on paper. The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket AM3+ for the FX-8350 versus Intel Socket 1151 for the Xeon.

Memory support differs, as noted: the FX-8350 is DDR3-only with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4 with 34.1 GB/s. ECC memory is available only on the Xeon. PCIe generation differs (Gen 2 vs Gen 3), and the integrated graphics presence is different (chipset-dependent vs on-die HD Graphics P530).

The FX-8350 has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable. The Xeon E3-1268L v5 has a locked multiplier. The release dates are about three years apart: the FX-8350 launched on 2012-10-22, and the Xeon on 2015-10-18. The launch MSRP for the FX-8350 was $199, while the Xeon was $377. The production status for both is end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FX-8350 wins on raw core count and clock speed. Eight physical cores at 4.00 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost give it a clear advantage in workloads that favor many threads and high clocks, assuming the software can use all eight cores. Its 8 MB L2 cache and 8 MB shared L3 provide ample on-die storage. The unlocked multiplier is a notable plus for users who want to push clocks further, though the 125-watt TDP suggests cooling will be a consideration.

The Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 wins on efficiency and modern features. A 35-watt TDP versus 125 watts is a massive difference, making the Xeon suitable for power-constrained environments. Its 14 nm process, support for DDR4 memory, higher memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, ECC memory support, and PCIe Gen 3 are all advantages. The integrated HD Graphics P530 is a practical feature for systems without a discrete GPU. The locked multiplier is a limitation, but the lower power draw and server-grade features make it a different kind of product.

In benchmark terms, the Xeon’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 5,383 and singlecore score of 760 show it is a capable performer despite lower clocks. The FX-8350’s Geekbench multicore score of 2,551 is strong for its era, but without Cinebench data for the AMD chip, a direct workload comparison is not possible. The identical average scores of 1,557 suggest they are broadly equivalent in aggregate, but the distribution of strengths is likely very different.

The Verdict

The data presents a fascinating tie. Both CPUs have an average benchmark score of 1,557 and sit at the 39th percentile. The AMD FX-8350 offers eight cores, high clocks, and an unlocked multiplier, making it a plausible choice for multi-threaded desktop workloads where power draw is not a concern. The Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 offers four cores with eight threads, a 35-watt TDP, ECC memory support, DDR4 compatibility, and integrated graphics, making it a fit for server or workstation tasks where reliability and efficiency matter more than raw clock speed.

For a user who prioritizes raw core count and overclocking headroom, the FX-8350 is the data-backed pick. Its 8-core configuration at 4.00 GHz base is unique in this comparison. For a user who prioritizes power efficiency, modern memory support, or ECC, the Xeon is the clear choice. The 90-watt TDP difference is substantial, and the Xeon’s DDR4 and PCIe Gen 3 support are forward-looking features.

The identical average scores are the central mystery. They imply that despite all architectural differences, the aggregate performance is the same. Users should choose based on the specific features they need, not on overall score. The FX-8350 is for those who want many cores and high clocks; the Xeon is for those who want efficiency and server-class features. Both are end-of-life products, so the decision is about matching the right tool to the right workload.