CPU Comparison

The AMD FX-8800P and Intel Xeon X5470 are two very different processors from different eras, yet they land in the same performance bracket. The data shows a 4-core, 4-thread configuration for both, but the similarities end there. This analysis pits a 15-watt mobile chip from 2015 against a 120-watt server/workstation part from 2008, revealing a fascinating convergence in average benchmark scores despite their architectural chasms.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results paint a picture of consistent, albeit narrow, Intel superiority. Across all five shared benchmark tests, the Xeon X5470 emerges as the winner, but the margins are remarkably slim. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 245 against the FX-8800P's 242, a delta of -1.2%. This pattern holds steady through the more demanding Cinebench R20 and R23 workloads, where the Xeon maintains a lead of approximately 1.4% in both multi-core and single-core tests.

The single-core results are particularly telling. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon posts 144 versus 142 for the AMD part, a 1.4% advantage. In R23 single-core, the gap widens slightly to 1.5%, with scores of 344 and 339 respectively. These numbers suggest that despite the Xeon's much older architecture, its high 3.33 GHz base clock (with no boost) is enough to outpace the FX-8800P's lower 2.10 GHz base clock, even when the AMD chip boosts to 3.40 GHz.

The multi-core results tell a similar story. The Xeon wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 1.2%, R20 multi-core by 1.4%, and R23 multi-core by 1.4%. The FX-8800P's four cores, based on the Excavator architecture, simply cannot overcome the Xeon's clock speed advantage. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the FX-8800P averages 843, while the Xeon sits at 839, a difference of 0.4% that places them as near-perfect equals in the overall rankings. Interestingly, the FX-8800P's nearest rival list includes the Xeon X5470 at a 0.4% delta, while the Xeon's list includes the FX-8800P's rival, the Core i5-3380M, at 0.1%.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon X5470 in every head-to-head benchmark, but the context matters enormously. The Xeon wins all five tests, but its victories are narrow, ranging from 1.2% to 1.5%. This means the FX-8800P is never far behind, and in real-world terms, these differences would be imperceptible to most users.

The FX-8800P's strengths lie not in raw benchmark scores but in its platform characteristics. It integrates a Radeon R7 8CU graphics solution, something the Xeon entirely lacks. For a system without a discrete GPU, the AMD part is functional out of the box, while the Xeon requires a separate graphics card. Additionally, the FX-8800P supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes, while the Xeon is limited to Gen 2.

The Xeon's wins are purely computational. It edges out the AMD chip in every rendering and compute test, and its support for ECC memory makes it suitable for error-sensitive workloads. The Xeon also has a significantly higher launch MSRP of $1386, reflecting its original server/workstation positioning, whereas the FX-8800P has no recorded launch MSRP, indicating a more mainstream mobile target.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two chips is vast, spanning seven years of process technology evolution. The AMD FX-8800P uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die. In contrast, the Intel Xeon X5470 uses the Core 2 architecture on a 45 nm process from Intel, with just 820 million transistors spread across two 107 mm² dies.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The FX-8800P has 320 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per module, with no L3 cache. The Xeon offers 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 6 MB of L2 cache per die, also without L3. This gives the Xeon a total of 12 MB of L2 cache across its two dies, a significant advantage for data-heavy workloads, though the FX-8800P's newer architecture may compensate with better cache efficiency.

Memory support is another differentiator. The FX-8800P supports DDR3 in dual-channel configuration with a bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, but no ECC. The Xeon supports both DDR2 and DDR3 depending on the motherboard, also dual-channel, but its memory bandwidth is not listed. The Xeon does support ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability that the AMD chip lacks.

The platforms themselves are incompatible. The FX-8800P uses AMD Socket FP4, a mobile socket, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 771, a server/workstation socket. The FX-8800P has a TDP of just 15 watts, making it suitable for thin laptops, whereas the Xeon draws 120 watts, requiring robust cooling and substantial power delivery. The Xeon's lack of a boost clock is notable; it runs at a fixed 3.33 GHz, while the FX-8800P dynamically boosts from 2.10 GHz to 3.40 GHz.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon X5470 scores 344 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the AMD FX-8800P scores 339, giving the Xeon a 1.5% advantage.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both the AMD FX-8800P and the Intel Xeon X5470 feature 4 cores and 4 threads, though their architectures and clock speeds differ significantly.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon X5470 supports ECC memory, while the AMD FX-8800P does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The AMD FX-8800P has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Intel Xeon X5470 has a TDP of 120 watts, an eight-fold difference.

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

A: Yes, the FX-8800P includes a Radeon R7 8CU integrated graphics solution, whereas the Intel Xeon X5470 has no integrated graphics.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD FX-8800P has an average benchmark score of 843, and the Intel Xeon X5470 scores 839, a negligible 0.4% difference.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if narrow, victory for the Intel Xeon X5470 in raw computational benchmarks. It wins all five head-to-head tests, and its ECC memory support and 12 MB of L2 cache make it a more robust choice for server or workstation tasks where data integrity is paramount. However, this comes at the cost of a 120-watt TDP, a 2008-era platform, and a launch MSRP of $1386.

The AMD FX-8800P, despite losing every benchmark, offers a compelling counterargument. Its 15-watt TDP is a fraction of the Xeon's power draw, making it suitable for mobile devices. The integrated Radeon R7 8CU graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU, and its PCIe Gen 3 support is a generation ahead of the Xeon's Gen 2. The benchmark deltas are so small, never exceeding 1.5%, that the FX-8800P's platform advantages could easily outweigh its slight computational deficit for many users.

For a server or workstation where ECC memory is non-negotiable and power consumption is secondary, the Xeon X5470 is the data-backed choice. For a mobile or low-power system where integrated graphics and efficiency matter more than a 1.4% benchmark margin, the FX-8800P is equally justified. The percentile rankings reinforce this: both chips sit at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are statistically equivalent in overall performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FX-8800P | Intel Xeon X5470 |

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

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 3.33 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.40 GHz | None |

| TDP | 15 W | 120 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP4 | Intel Socket 771 |

| Architecture | Excavator | Core 2 |

| Codename | Carrizo | Harpertown |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 45 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 820 million |

| Die Size | 250 mm² | 2x 107 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per module) | 6 MB (per die) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR2, DDR3 (depends on motherboard) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | Not specified |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 2 |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon R7 8CU | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2015-06-01 | 2008-09-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $1386 |

| Part Number | FM880PAAY43KAFM880PAAY43KAD | SLBBF |