CPU Comparison

# AMD FX-8800P vs Intel Xeon X3450

The AMD FX-8800P and Intel Xeon X3450 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum despite landing in the same performance percentile. The FX-8800P is a 15-watt mobile processor built for battery-conscious laptops, while the Xeon X3450 is a 95-watt server/workstation chip from an earlier era. Benchmark data shows the Xeon edging ahead in every single test, yet the gap is remarkably narrow, never exceeding 1.4%, which raises questions about what each platform truly offers beyond raw compute.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon X3450 wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the margins tell a story of near-parity rather than dominance. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 245 against the FX-8800P's 242, a 1.2% advantage. The R20 multicore test shows 1021 versus 1010, a 1.1% edge. Single-core results follow the same pattern: R20 single-core gives the Xeon 144 versus 142 (1.4% ahead), and R23 single-core shows 343 versus 339 (1.2% ahead). The largest gap appears in R23 multicore, where the Xeon's 2431 beats 2407 by exactly 1%.

The FX-8800P's wins are not in benchmark scores but in platform characteristics. Its 15-watt TDP represents a massive efficiency advantage over the Xeon's 95-watt envelope, a 6.3x difference in thermal design power. The AMD part integrates Radeon R7 graphics with 8 compute units, eliminating the need for a separate GPU, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. The FX-8800P also supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes, whereas the Xeon is limited to PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes.

For mobile workloads, the FX-8800P is the clear choice, it fits in thin laptops and sips power. The Xeon X3450 targets server racks and workstations where power draw is less critical and where ECC memory support (which the FX-8800P lacks) matters for data integrity.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies separated by roughly six years of silicon evolution. The FX-8800P uses AMD's Excavator architecture on a 28nm GlobalFoundries process, packing 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die. The Xeon X3450 relies on Intel's Nehalem architecture on a 45nm process, with just 774 million transistors across a larger 296 mm² die.

Core counts match at four, but threading diverges sharply. The FX-8800P offers 4 threads total, one per core, while the Xeon X3450 doubles that to 8 threads via Hyper-Threading. This explains why the Xeon's multicore advantage exists despite lower clock speeds in some scenarios. The FX-8800P boosts to 3.40 GHz from a 2.10 GHz base, while the Xeon boosts to 3.20 GHz from 2.67 GHz.

Cache hierarchies could not be more different. The FX-8800P uses a module-based design with 320 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per module, with no L3 cache at all. The Xeon X3450 features 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and a shared 8 MB L3 cache, a substantial pool that likely compensates for its older architecture in memory-heavy workloads.

Memory bandwidth favors the AMD part: 34.1 GB/s versus 21.3 GB/s for the Xeon, despite both using dual-channel DDR3. The Xeon counters with ECC memory support, a feature absent on the FX-8800P and critical for server reliability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a processor that consistently trails but never collapses. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon's 245-point score beats the FX-8800P's 242 by a razor-thin 1.2% margin. This test, which stresses all cores simultaneously, should theoretically favor the Xeon's 8 threads over the FX-8800P's 4, yet the AMD chip's newer architecture and higher boost clock keep it competitive.

Cinebench R20 multicore widens the gap slightly to 1.1%, with the Xeon scoring 1021 against 1010. The single-core R20 test shows the largest relative difference at 1.4%: 144 versus 142. This is notable because single-core performance typically reflects architectural efficiency and clock speed, where the FX-8800P's 3.40 GHz boost should give it an edge, but the Xeon's older Nehalem design still manages to win.

The R23 multicore test delivers the closest overall result: 2431 versus 2407, a 1% difference. Here, the Xeon's thread advantage appears insufficient to overcome the FX-8800P's architectural improvements. R23 single-core shows 343 versus 339, again favoring the Xeon by 1.2%.

With zero wins for the FX-8800P and five for the Xeon, the data is unambiguous on performance. Yet the average benchmark score tells a slightly different story: the FX-8800P averages 843 across all tests, while the Xeon averages 837, the AMD part actually scores higher on average, likely because its Geekbench results (1234 multicore, 524 single-core) are not part of the head-to-head comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Xeon X3450 wins all multicore benchmarks in the head-to-head data. It leads by 1.2% in Cinebench R15 multicore (245 vs 242), 1.1% in R20 multicore (1021 vs 1010), and 1% in R23 multicore (2431 vs 2407). Its 8 threads versus 4 likely contribute to these consistent wins.

Q: Is the AMD FX-8800P more power-efficient?

A: Yes, dramatically so. The FX-8800P has a 15-watt TDP compared to the Xeon X3450's 95-watt TDP, a 6.3x difference. This makes the FX-8800P suitable for mobile devices while the Xeon requires substantial cooling and power delivery.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon X3450 supports ECC memory. The AMD FX-8800P does not include ECC support, which may be a deciding factor for server or workstation applications where memory errors are unacceptable.

Q: Which chip has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD FX-8800P integrates Radeon R7 graphics with 8 compute units, allowing systems to operate without a discrete GPU. The Intel Xeon X3450 has no integrated graphics and requires a separate graphics card.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The FX-8800P has an average benchmark score of 843 across all tests, while the Xeon X3450 averages 837. This puts the AMD chip slightly ahead overall, despite losing the head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, due to its stronger Geekbench results.

Q: What are the release dates and production status?

A: The AMD FX-8800P was released on June 1, 2015, while the Intel Xeon X3450 came out on September 7, 2009. Both are end-of-life products, with no active production.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a curious conclusion: the Intel Xeon X3450 wins every direct comparison but only by margins of 1-1.4%, while the AMD FX-8800P holds its own in average scores and dominates in efficiency and platform features. For raw processing power, the Xeon is the statistically superior choice, its 8 threads provide a measurable, if small, advantage across all Cinebench versions. Server and workstation users needing ECC memory will find the Xeon X3450 the only viable option of the two.

For mobile computing, the FX-8800P is the obvious pick. Its 15-watt TDP enables fanless or low-noise designs, and the integrated Radeon R7 graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU. The 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth also exceeds the Xeon's 21.3 GB/s, which could benefit memory-intensive applications despite the lack of L3 cache.

The 22nd percentile ranking for both processors suggests they occupy similar performance tiers relative to all CPUs. Users upgrading from an older system might find the FX-8800P's modern features, PCIe Gen 3, smaller process node, integrated graphics, more compelling than the Xeon's marginal benchmark wins. Conversely, those with existing Socket 1156 platforms could extract more life from a Xeon X3450 upgrade, especially if ECC memory is a requirement.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FX-8800P | Intel Xeon X3450 |

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

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 2.67 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.40 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 95 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP4 | Intel Socket 1156 |

| Architecture | Excavator | Nehalem |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 45 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 774 million |

| Die Size | 250 mm² | 296 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per module) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | None | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | 21.3 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 8 Lanes | Gen 2, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon R7 8CU | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2015-06-01 | 2009-09-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not stated | $241 |