AMD FX-8800P vs Intel Xeon W3520 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the Intel Xeon W3520 and the AMD FX-8800P is entirely one-sided in the recorded data. The Intel Xeon W3520 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads across three different Cinebench revisions. There is no test in the database where the AMD FX-8800P comes out ahead.

The Intel Xeon W3520 claims victory in multi-threaded rendering tasks. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 252 against 242 for the FX-8800P, a 4.1 percent advantage. The gap remains consistent in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon posts 1052 versus 1010, again a 4.2 percent lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the same pattern: 2505 for Intel against 2407 for AMD, a 4.1 percent margin.

Single-threaded performance also favors the older Xeon part. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 148 for Intel versus 142 for AMD, a 4.2 percent lead. Cinebench R23 single-core repeats the result with 353 against 339, a 4.1 percent edge. The consistency of these deltas across every test suggests a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The AMD FX-8800P does hold one data point not available for the Intel chip: a Geekbench multi-core score of 1234 and a single-core score of 524. However, no Geekbench results exist for the Xeon W3520 in the database, so no head-to-head comparison can be drawn from that test.

Architecture Differences

These two processors come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon W3520 is a 45 nm Nehalem part, codenamed Bloomfield, released in March 2009. It targets the server and workstation segment and uses the Intel Socket 1366. The AMD FX-8800P is a 28 nm Excavator part, codenamed Carrizo, released in June 2015, built for mobile platforms on the AMD Socket FP4.

The core counts match at four physical cores, but threading differs. The Xeon W3520 supports eight threads via Hyper-Threading, while the FX-8800P runs four threads with no SMT equivalent. This explains part of the multi-core advantage for Intel, even though the AMD chip has a substantially higher boost clock.

Clock speeds tell a contrasting story. The Xeon W3520 has a base clock of 2.67 GHz and a boost clock of 2.93 GHz. The FX-8800P starts lower at 2.10 GHz base but boosts much higher to 3.40 GHz. Despite the higher boost ceiling on the AMD part, the Intel chip still wins every single-core benchmark, pointing to a significant per-clock efficiency gap between Nehalem and Excavator.

Cache configurations differ markedly. The Xeon W3520 provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The FX-8800P offers 320 KB of total L1 and 1 MB of L2 per module, with no L3 cache at all. The absence of L3 on the AMD part is a notable handicap in workloads that benefit from shared cache.

Transistor counts and die sizes also reflect the generational gap. The Xeon W3520 packs 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The FX-8800P contains 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die, a much denser integration enabled by the 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries.

Memory support shows further divergence. Both support DDR3, but the Xeon uses a triple-channel memory bus while the FX-8800P uses dual-channel. The AMD part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s; no bandwidth figure is recorded for the Intel chip. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the FX-8800P, consistent with the Xeon's server positioning.

PCIe generation differs as well. The Xeon W3520 offers PCIe Gen 2, while the FX-8800P provides PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU only. The AMD part also integrates a Radeon R7 8CU graphics unit, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. Power consumption is dramatically different: the Xeon carries a 130 W TDP, the FX-8800P only 15 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results in the database are remarkably uniform. Every Cinebench comparison lands within a narrow 4.1 to 4.2 percent range in favor of the Intel Xeon W3520.

Cinebench R15 multi-core gives the Xeon 252 points against 242 for the FX-8800P, a 4.1 percent win. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1052 versus 1010, a 4.2 percent margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core records 2505 against 2407, again 4.1 percent. The multi-core story is consistent: the Xeon's eight threads against four, plus its architectural efficiency, deliver a repeatable edge across all three Cinebench generations.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. Cinebench R20 single-core has the Xeon at 148 and the FX-8800P at 142, a 4.2 percent lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 353 versus 339, a 4.1 percent advantage. The fact that the Xeon wins single-core tests despite a lower boost clock (2.93 GHz versus 3.40 GHz) is the most telling result in the entire comparison. It indicates that the Nehalem core delivers substantially more instructions per clock than the Excavator core in these workloads.

The average benchmark scores place the two chips close together overall. The Xeon W3520 has an average benchmark score of 862, landing at the 23rd percentile of all CPUs. The FX-8800P averages 843, at the 22nd percentile. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-3470T at 863 (0.1 percent lower), the AMD A8-7650K at 860 (0.2 percent lower), the Intel Core i7-4500U at 859 (0.3 percent lower), and the Intel Xeon X3460 at 866 (0.5 percent higher). The FX-8800P's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3520M at 843 (zero difference), the Intel Core i7-920 at 840 (0.3 percent higher), the Intel Xeon X5470 at 839 (0.4 percent higher), and the Intel Core i5-3380M at 838 (0.6 percent higher).

Neither chip is a performance standout by modern standards. Both sit near the bottom quartile of all CPUs in the database. The head-to-head margins, while consistent, are small enough that real-world differences in lightly threaded or bursty workloads would be difficult to perceive without measurement tools.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon W3520 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It leads by 4.1 percent in Cinebench R15 (252 versus 242), 4.2 percent in Cinebench R20 (1052 versus 1010), and 4.1 percent in Cinebench R23 (2505 versus 2407).

Q: Does the AMD FX-8800P win any benchmark?

A: No. The database records five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, and the Intel Xeon W3520 wins all five. The FX-8800P has Geekbench results (1234 multi-core, 524 single-core), but no Geekbench score exists for the Xeon, so no comparison is possible on that test.

Q: Why does the Intel chip win single-core tests despite a lower boost clock?

A: The Xeon W3520 boosts to 2.93 GHz while the FX-8800P boosts to 3.40 GHz, yet the Xeon leads by 4.2 percent in Cinebench R20 single-core (148 versus 142) and 4.1 percent in Cinebench R23 single-core (353 versus 339). This indicates the Nehalem core delivers more instructions per clock than the Excavator core in these workloads.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Xeon W3520 sits within 0.5 percent of four rivals: the Core i5-3470T, A8-7650K, Core i7-4500U, and Xeon X3460. The FX-8800P matches the Core i7-3520M exactly and sits within 0.6 percent of the Core i7-920, Xeon X5470, and Core i5-3380M.

Q: What are the key architectural differences?

A: The Xeon W3520 is a 45 nm Nehalem part with 4 cores and 8 threads, 8 MB of L3 cache, triple-channel DDR3, ECC support, and a 130 W TDP. The FX-8800P is a 28 nm Excavator part with 4 cores and 4 threads, no L3 cache, dual-channel DDR3 with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, no ECC, integrated Radeon R7 graphics, and a 15 W TDP.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Xeon W3520 supports ECC memory, consistent with its server and workstation market segment. The AMD FX-8800P does not support ECC.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but narrow verdict. The Intel Xeon W3520 is the faster processor in every benchmark where both chips were measured. Its five head-to-head wins span single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests, with margins between 4.1 and 4.2 percent. The Xeon achieves this despite a much lower boost clock, an older 45 nm process, and a smaller transistor count, which points to a substantial architectural efficiency advantage in the Nehalem design.

The FX-8800P is not without merit. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Xeon's 130 W, making it suitable for mobile platforms where power and heat are primary constraints. It also integrates Radeon R7 graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. Its PCIe Gen 3 support and higher boost clock are modern advantages, but they do not translate into wins in the recorded Cinebench results.

For a buyer choosing purely on CPU compute performance, the Xeon W3520 is the correct pick. It wins every synthetic rendering test in the database, offers eight threads for multi-tasking, and supports ECC memory for reliability-sensitive workloads. The trade-off is a 130 W power draw and a server-oriented platform that requires a discrete graphics solution.

For a buyer prioritizing power efficiency, integrated graphics, or a mobile form factor, the FX-8800P is the only sensible choice. Its 15 W TDP is an order of magnitude lower, and its integrated Radeon R7 8CU graphics remove the need for a separate GPU. The performance penalty is small in percentage terms, roughly 4 percent across Cinebench tests, which may be an acceptable trade for the power savings.

Both processors are end-of-life products. The Xeon W3520 was released in March 2009, the FX-8800P in June 2015. Neither sits above the 23rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The average benchmark scores, 862 for the Xeon and 843 for the FX-8800P, place both firmly in the lower quartile of recorded processors.

The closest comparison data reinforces the picture. The Xeon W3520 trades blows with the Core i5-3470T, A8-7650K, Core i7-4500U, and Xeon X3460, all within 0.5 percent. The FX-8800P matches the Core i7-3520M exactly and stays within 0.6 percent of the Core i7-920, Xeon X5470, and Core i5-3380M. These rival clusters confirm that both chips occupy a similar performance tier, with the Xeon holding a small but consistent edge.

The verdict, strictly from the recorded data, is straightforward: the Intel Xeon W3520 wins on performance, the AMD FX-8800P wins on efficiency and platform integration. Choose accordingly based on which constraint matters more.