AMD FX-8800P vs Intel Xeon X3440 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD FX-8800P boosts to 3.40 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Xeon X3440's 2.93 GHz boost.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon X3440 supports ECC memory. The AMD FX-8800P does not list ECC support.

Q: How do their Cinebench R23 multi-core scores compare?

A: The AMD FX-8800P scores 2407, while the Intel Xeon X3440 scores 2368. The AMD part leads by 1.6%.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The AMD FX-8800P has 3,100 million transistors on a 28 nm process. The Intel Xeon X3440 has 774 million transistors on a 45 nm process.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD FX-8800P includes integrated graphics (Radeon R7 8CU). The Intel Xeon X3440 does not have any integrated graphics.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each CPU?

A: The AMD FX-8800P averages 843 points, while the Intel Xeon X3440 averages 815 points. Both sit at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design eras and purposes. The AMD FX-8800P is a mobile part built on the Excavator architecture (codename Carrizo), manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 28 nm process. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die. The Intel Xeon X3440 uses the older Nehalem architecture (codename Lynnfield), built by Intel on a 45 nm process with just 774 million transistors across a larger 296 mm² die.

The FX-8800P features 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost of 3.40 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 320 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per module, with no L3 cache. The Xeon X3440 also has 4 cores but supports 8 threads through Hyper-Threading. It runs at a higher base clock of 2.53 GHz but a lower boost of 2.93 GHz. Its cache design is different: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and a substantial 8 MB shared L3 cache.

Memory support shows another split. Both use DDR3 with dual-channel memory buses, but the FX-8800P achieves 34.1 GB/s bandwidth versus 21.3 GB/s for the Xeon. The AMD chip supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Intel part only supports PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes. ECC memory is available only on the Xeon. The FX-8800P targets the mobile market with a 15 W TDP, while the Xeon X3440 is a server/workstation part with a 95 W TDP. The AMD chip includes Radeon R7 8CU integrated graphics; the Intel chip has none.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the AMD FX-8800P wins every single head-to-head test in the database. Across five Cinebench benchmarks, the AMD part takes all five victories. The margins are narrow but consistent, ranging from 1.4% to 1.7% depending on the test.

For users prioritizing single-threaded performance, the FX-8800P leads in Cinebench R20 single-core (142 vs 140, a 1.4% advantage) and Cinebench R23 single-core (339 vs 334, a 1.5% edge). For multi-threaded workloads, the same pattern holds: R15 multi-core (242 vs 238, 1.7% ahead), R20 multi-core (1010 vs 994, 1.6% ahead), and R23 multi-core (2407 vs 2368, 1.6% ahead).

The Xeon X3440 does have the advantage of 8 threads versus 4, plus a larger shared L3 cache and ECC support. But the recorded benchmark results show that these architectural advantages do not translate into performance wins in the tested workloads. The FX-8800P simply scores higher everywhere.

The choice depends on the use case. For mobile or low-power scenarios, the FX-8800P is the only sensible option given its 15 W TDP and integrated graphics. For server environments requiring ECC memory, the Xeon X3440 is the necessary pick despite its lower benchmark scores. For raw performance in the tested Cinebench workloads, the AMD part wins all five comparisons.

Specification Differences

• Cores: Both have 4 cores, but the Xeon X3440 has 8 threads versus 4 for the FX-8800P.
• Base clock: Xeon X3440 at 2.53 GHz, FX-8800P at 2.10 GHz.
• Boost clock: FX-8800P at 3.40 GHz, Xeon X3440 at 2.93 GHz.
• TDP: FX-8800P at 15 W, Xeon X3440 at 95 W.
• Socket: FX-8800P uses AMD Socket FP4, Xeon X3440 uses Intel Socket 1156.
• Process node: FX-8800P at 28 nm, Xeon X3440 at 45 nm.
• Transistors: FX-8800P at 3,100 million, Xeon X3440 at 774 million.
• Die size: Xeon X3440 at 296 mm², FX-8800P at 250 mm².
• L1 cache: FX-8800P has 320 KB total, Xeon X3440 has 64 KB per core.
• L2 cache: FX-8800P has 1 MB per module, Xeon X3440 has 256 KB per core.
• L3 cache: Xeon X3440 has 8 MB shared, FX-8800P has none.
• Memory bandwidth: FX-8800P at 34.1 GB/s, Xeon X3440 at 21.3 GB/s.
• ECC support: Xeon X3440 supports it, FX-8800P does not.
• PCIe: FX-8800P is Gen 3 with 8 lanes, Xeon X3440 is Gen 2 with 16 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: FX-8800P includes Radeon R7 8CU, Xeon X3440 has none.
• Market segment: FX-8800P is mobile, Xeon X3440 is server/workstation.
• Release date: FX-8800P launched 2015-06-01, Xeon X3440 launched 2009-09-07. The Xeon had a launch MSRP of $215.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records five direct comparisons between these two CPUs, all from the Cinebench suite. The AMD FX-8800P wins all five.

The largest margin comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the FX-8800P scores 242 against the Xeon's 238, a 1.7% advantage. This is the biggest single win in either direction. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the FX-8800P leads 142 to 140, just 1.4% apart.

The multi-core results show a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the FX-8800P scores 1010 versus 994, a 1.6% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the scores are 2407 and 2368, again a 1.6% gap. The single-core results follow suit: Cinebench R23 single-core shows 339 versus 334, a 1.5% edge for the AMD part.

The overall average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The FX-8800P averages 843 points, while the Xeon X3440 averages 815 points. The AMD chip's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-3520M at 843 points (0% delta), while the Xeon's closest competitor is the Intel Xeon E5540 at 820 points (0.7% lower). Both CPUs sit in the same 22nd percentile overall, but the FX-8800P holds a measurable lead.

Where Each One Wins

AMD FX-8800P wins on:

• Every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, including both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests.
• Memory bandwidth, at 34.1 GB/s versus 21.3 GB/s for the Xeon.
• Power efficiency, with a 15 W TDP compared to 95 W for the Intel part.
• Integrated graphics, which the Xeon completely lacks.
• A newer PCIe standard (Gen 3 versus Gen 2).
• A smaller manufacturing process (28 nm versus 45 nm).

Intel Xeon X3440 wins on:

• Thread count, offering 8 threads versus 4 for the AMD chip.
• Base clock speed, at 2.53 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.
• Cache capacity, with 8 MB of shared L3 cache compared to no L3 on the AMD part.
• ECC memory support, which is absent on the FX-8800P.
• PCIe lane count, at 16 lanes versus 8 lanes.
• Server/workstation positioning, with a launch MSRP of $215.

The performance data gives the FX-8800P the edge in every measured workload. The Xeon's advantages are architectural and feature-based, not reflected in the benchmark scores. Users who need ECC memory or maximum thread count will look to the Xeon. Users who want better benchmark results, integrated graphics, or lower power draw will prefer the FX-8800P. The database shows 5 wins for the AMD part and 0 for the Intel part across all head-to-head tests.