AMD FX-8800P vs Intel Xeon X3460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon X3460 wins every single head-to-head comparison against the AMD FX-8800P. Across five Cinebench tests, the Xeon X3460 maintains a consistent lead, with deltas ranging from 4.3% to 4.7%. There is not a single workload category in the recorded data where the AMD FX-8800P comes out ahead, and the winsA counter sits at zero while winsB sits at five.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon X3460 scores 253 against the FX-8800P's 242, a 4.3% advantage. That gap widens slightly in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Xeon posts 1057 versus 1010, a 4.4% margin. The Cinebench R23 multicore test shows the same pattern: 2518 for the Xeon X3460 and 2407 for the FX-8800P, again a 4.4% difference. Single-core results are nearly identical in proportion, with the Xeon leading by 4.7% in Cinebench R20 single-core (149 vs 142) and 4.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core (355 vs 339).

What is striking is the consistency of the gap. The Xeon X3460 does not merely win by a few points in one test and lose in another; it wins by roughly the same margin everywhere. This suggests that the performance difference is structural, not workload-dependent. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the Xeon X3460 averages 866 across all recorded benchmarks, while the FX-8800P averages 843. That 23-point difference places the Xeon in the 23rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, one percentile point above the FX-8800P's 22nd percentile.

The nearest rival data puts these numbers in context. The FX-8800P's closest competitor in the database is the Intel Core i7-3520M, which matches its 843 average score exactly with a 0% delta. The Xeon X3460, by contrast, sits near the Intel Core i7-3540M, which scores 867 and edges out the Xeon by 0.1%. In other words, the FX-8800P performs like a mid-range mobile dual-core from the Ivy Bridge era, while the Xeon X3460 lands just below a slightly faster version of that same chip. Neither processor is a heavyweight by modern standards, but the Xeon X3460 is consistently the stronger of the two.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the Xeon X3460 wins all five head-to-head tests, the section on where each one wins is largely a matter of degrees. The Xeon X3460 wins in every Cinebench generation represented in the data, from R15 through R23, and in both single-core and multicore workloads. Its largest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core at 4.7%, and its smallest is in Cinebench R15 multicore at 4.3%. There is no test category, render workload, or scoring method in the database where the AMD FX-8800P takes a win.

For the AMD FX-8800P, the closest it comes to competitiveness is in multicore tests, where the deltas are 4.3% and 4.4% rather than the 4.5% to 4.7% seen in single-core tests. This hints that the FX-8800P's four physical cores can partially compensate for its lower clock speeds when all cores are active. However, even in its best case, the multicore Cinebench R15 result, the FX-8800P still trails by 11 points. The data does not support any scenario where the FX-8800P wins.

The single-core gap is particularly telling. The Xeon X3460 boosts to 3.47 GHz compared to the FX-8800P's 3.40 GHz, and that higher frequency, combined with a more efficient architecture, yields a 4.5% to 4.7% single-thread advantage. For users running lightly threaded applications, the Xeon X3460 is the clear pick. For heavily threaded workloads, the Xeon's eight threads (versus the FX-8800P's four) give it an edge that the FX-8800P cannot overcome.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and different design philosophies. The AMD FX-8800P is built on the Excavator architecture, codenamed Carrizo, on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It integrates 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The Intel Xeon X3460 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Lynnfield, on a 45 nm process at Intel, with 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die. The process node difference is substantial: 28 nm versus 45 nm, which helps explain why the FX-8800P fits roughly four times as many transistors on a smaller die.

Core and thread counts differ as well. The FX-8800P has four cores and four threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The Xeon X3460 has four cores and eight threads, effectively doubling the thread count via Hyper-Threading. This explains the Xeon's consistent multicore advantage despite both chips having the same physical core count.

Cache configurations are organized differently. The FX-8800P has 320 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per module. The Xeon X3460 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, plus an 8 MB shared L3 cache. The FX-8800P has no L3 cache at all. The Xeon's large shared L3 cache is a significant architectural advantage for workloads with reused data across cores.

Memory support is DDR3 for both, and both use dual-channel memory buses. However, the FX-8800P has a higher peak memory bandwidth at 34.1 GB/s versus the Xeon X3460's 21.3 GB/s. The FX-8800P does not support ECC memory, while the Xeon X3460 does. PCIe support differs: the FX-8800P offers Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Xeon X3460 offers Gen 2 with 16 CPU lanes.

The FX-8800P includes integrated graphics, a Radeon R7 with 8 compute units, while the Xeon X3460 has no integrated graphics. The FX-8800P is a mobile part on AMD Socket FP4 with a 15 W TDP, while the Xeon X3460 is a server/workstation part on Intel Socket 1156 with a 95 W TDP. The release dates are six years apart: the FX-8800P launched in June 2015, and the Xeon X3460 in September 2009. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Xeon X3460 has eight threads via Hyper-Threading, while the AMD FX-8800P has four threads. Both have four physical cores.

Q: Does the AMD FX-8800P have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the FX-8800P includes a Radeon R7 with 8 compute units. The Intel Xeon X3460 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon X3460 supports ECC memory. The AMD FX-8800P does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD FX-8800P has a 15 W TDP, while the Intel Xeon X3460 has a 95 W TDP. The FX-8800P is designed for mobile use on AMD Socket FP4, whereas the Xeon X3460 targets server and workstation use on Intel Socket 1156.

Q: How do they compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Xeon X3460 has an average benchmark score of 866, while the FX-8800P scores 843. The Xeon also holds a 23rd percentile rank versus the FX-8800P's 22nd percentile.

Q: Which chip has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon X3460 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD FX-8800P has no L3 cache at all.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD FX-8800P is a mobile part with a 15 W TDP, while the Intel Xeon X3460 is a server/workstation part with a 95 W TDP. Base clocks differ: the FX-8800P runs at 2.10 GHz, while the Xeon X3460 runs at 2.80 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, at 3.40 GHz for the FX-8800P and 3.47 GHz for the Xeon X3460. Thread counts differ as noted, with the Xeon offering eight threads to the FX-8800P's four.

The process nodes are different: 28 nm for the FX-8800P, 45 nm for the Xeon X3460. Transistor counts differ dramatically, with the FX-8800P at 3,100 million and the Xeon at 774 million. Die sizes are 250 mm² for the FX-8800P and 296 mm² for the Xeon. Cache structures are entirely different, with the FX-8800P using 320 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per module, and the Xeon using 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3.

Memory bandwidth favors the FX-8800P at 34.1 GB/s versus 21.3 GB/s for the Xeon. ECC support goes to the Xeon only. PCIe generations and lane counts differ: the FX-8800P has Gen 3 with 8 lanes, while the Xeon has Gen 2 with 16 lanes. The FX-8800P has integrated graphics and the Xeon does not. Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket FP4 versus Intel Socket 1156. Release dates are June 2015 for the FX-8800P and September 2009 for the Xeon X3460. The Xeon X3460 has a recorded launch MSRP of $316; the FX-8800P has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Xeon X3460 is the faster processor in every benchmark test recorded. It wins all five head-to-head comparisons, holds a higher average benchmark score, and ranks one percentile point higher in the database. Users who need maximum compute performance, particularly in threaded workloads, should choose the Xeon X3460. Its eight threads and 8 MB of shared L3 cache give it a structural advantage that the FX-8800P cannot offset.

The AMD FX-8800P is not without merits, but they are not performance merits. It offers integrated Radeon R7 graphics, a much lower 15 W TDP, higher memory bandwidth at 34.1 GB/s, and a smaller 28 nm process node. For a mobile or low-power system where integrated graphics are required and power draw is critical, the FX-8800P is the only option of the two, since the Xeon X3460 has no integrated graphics and a 95 W TDP. The FX-8800P also uses newer PCIe Gen 3, though with fewer lanes.

For anyone building a workstation or server system on Intel Socket 1156, the Xeon X3460 is the obvious pick. It offers ECC memory support, which the FX-8800P lacks, and its performance lead is consistent across every workload in the data. The verdict is straightforward: the Xeon X3460 wins on performance, while the FX-8800P wins on power efficiency and integrated graphics. Choose based on those priorities, not on benchmark scores, because the benchmark scores all point one way.