AMD FX-9800P vs Intel Xeon E5450 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. Across all five shared Cinebench tests, the Intel Xeon E5450 wins every single contest. The AMD FX-9800P does not take a single victory in any test where both processors have recorded scores. This makes the use-case split straightforward from a pure performance standpoint: the Xeon E5450 is the stronger CPU in every measured workload category.

That said, the two chips occupy fundamentally different market positions. The Xeon E5450 is a server and workstation part, designed for sustained multi-threaded throughput in professional environments. The FX-9800P is a mobile processor aimed at laptops and compact systems, where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter more than raw compute. The benchmark data shows the Xeon winning, but the FX-9800P's role is different. It brings a Radeon R7 8CU integrated graphics solution, something the Xeon lacks entirely. In systems where a discrete GPU is not an option, the FX-9800P can handle display output and basic graphics acceleration on its own, while the Xeon requires a separate graphics card.

For users prioritizing raw CPU performance in Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the Xeon E5450 is the clear choice. The delta is consistent, hovering around 5% across all tests. For users prioritizing a complete mobile platform with integrated graphics, low power draw, and modern memory support, the FX-9800P has attributes the Xeon simply does not offer. The wins are all on the Intel side, but the AMD part wins on platform integration and power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from very different design eras and philosophies. The Intel Xeon E5450 is built on the Core 2 architecture, specifically the Harpertown codename. It uses a 45 nm process node manufactured by Intel itself. The chip contains 820 million transistors spread across a dual-die design with each die measuring 107 mm², for a total die size of 2x 107 mm². The FX-9800P, in contrast, uses AMD's Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename. It is built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, packing 3,100 million transistors into a single 250 mm² die.

The transistor count difference is striking. The AMD chip has nearly four times as many transistors, largely because it integrates a graphics processor, memory controller, and other platform elements onto the same die. The Xeon relies on a separate northbridge and external graphics, keeping its compute cores relatively simple.

Cache layouts also differ meaningfully. The Xeon E5450 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 6 MB of L2 cache per die. With two dies, this effectively offers a substantial pool of L2 cache. The FX-9800P has 320 KB of L1 cache total and 1 MB of L2 cache per module. Neither processor has any L3 cache. The Xeon's larger L2 cache likely contributes to its performance edge in the benchmark results.

Memory support diverges as well. The Xeon E5450 supports DDR2 and DDR3 memory, depending on the motherboard, through a dual-channel memory bus. The FX-9800P supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The Xeon does not have a recorded memory bandwidth figure. ECC memory is supported by the Xeon, reflecting its server heritage, while the FX-9800P does not support ECC.

PCI Express generation also differs. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2, while the FX-9800P supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The AMD part also includes integrated graphics, listed as Radeon R7 8CU, which is entirely absent from the Xeon. The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 771, while the FX-9800P uses AMD Socket FP4.

The process node gap is significant. The Xeon's 45 nm process is older and less dense than AMD's 28 nm process. Yet despite the older manufacturing technology, the Xeon still manages to outperform the FX-9800P in every measured benchmark. This speaks to architectural efficiency differences between the Core 2 design and Excavator.

Power consumption is another major divider. The Xeon E5450 has a TDP of 80 watts, while the FX-9800P is rated at just 15 watts. That is a massive difference, more than five times the thermal envelope. The FX-9800P is clearly designed for thin-and-light mobile systems, while the Xeon is built for servers and workstations where power is less constrained.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The Xeon has a fixed base clock of 3.00 GHz with no boost clock listed. The FX-9800P has a lower base clock of 2.70 GHz but can boost up to 3.60 GHz. Despite the AMD part's ability to reach a higher peak clock, the Xeon still wins every benchmark. This indicates that the Xeon's architectural efficiency and larger cache compensate for its lower maximum frequency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are consistent across all five Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon E5450 scores 221 against the FX-9800P's 210, a difference of 5.2%. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon scores 923 against 876, a 5.4% advantage. The single-core R20 test shows the Xeon at 130 versus 123, a 5.7% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core has the Xeon at 2198 versus 2088, a 5.3% margin. Finally, Cinebench R23 single-core shows 310 versus 294, a 5.4% difference.

The narrow range of the deltas is remarkable. Every test lands between 5.2% and 5.7%. This consistency suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Xeon is simply more efficient at executing these rendering workloads, regardless of whether the test is single-threaded or multi-threaded.

The FX-9800P does have additional benchmark data in Geekbench that the Xeon lacks. The AMD part scores 1127 in Geekbench multi-core and 498 in Geekbench single-core. However, since the Xeon has no recorded Geekbench scores, these cannot be directly compared. They simply provide additional context for where the FX-9800P sits in the broader performance landscape.

The average benchmark score for the Xeon E5450 is 756, while the FX-9800P averages 745. That puts the Xeon roughly 1.5% ahead on average across all their recorded benchmarks, though the comparison is complicated by the fact that the FX-9800P has Geekbench results included in its average while the Xeon does not. Both processors sit at the 20th percentile compared to all CPUs in the database.

Looking at nearest rivals provides additional context. The Xeon E5450's closest competitor is the Intel Core i5-4250U, with an identical average score of 756 and a delta of 0%. Other nearby rivals include the Core i3-5020U at 757 (-0.2%), the Core i5-3230M at 754 (0.2%), and the Core i5-3210M at 758 (-0.2%). The FX-9800P's nearest rival is the AMD A10 PRO-7800B at 746 (-0.1%), followed by the Core i5-4200U at 746 (-0.1%), the Core i5-750 at 747 (-0.3%), and the Xeon E5520 at 742 (0.5%). These rivalries show both chips landing in a similar performance tier despite their different architectures and market positions.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Xeon E5450 wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core it scores 221 versus 210 for the FX-9800P, a 5.2% lead. In R20 multi-core it scores 923 versus 876, a 5.4% lead. In R23 multi-core it scores 2198 versus 2088, a 5.3% lead.

Q: Does the AMD FX-9800P win any benchmark where both are measured?

A: No. Across all five shared Cinebench tests (R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core), the Xeon E5450 wins every one. The FX-9800P has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD FX-9800P has integrated graphics, listed as Radeon R7 8CU. The Intel Xeon E5450 has no integrated graphics, meaning it requires a separate graphics card for display output.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Xeon E5450 has a TDP of 80 watts, while the FX-9800P is rated at 15 watts. The FX-9800P draws substantially less power, making it suitable for mobile systems, while the Xeon is designed for server and workstation environments.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Xeon E5450 has an average benchmark score of 756, while the FX-9800P has an average of 745. Both sit at the 20th percentile compared to all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5450 supports ECC memory, consistent with its server and workstation positioning. The AMD FX-9800P does not support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The table below highlights only the fields where they diverge.

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5450 | AMD FX-9800P |

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

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 80 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 771 | AMD Socket FP4 |

| Architecture | Core 2 | Excavator |

| Codename | Harpertown | Bristol Ridge |

| Process Node | 45 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 820 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 2x 107 mm² | 250 mm² |

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

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

| Memory Support | DDR2, DDR3 (depends on motherboard) | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | None recorded | 29.9 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon R7 8CU |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2007-11-10 | 2016-05-30 |

| Launch MSRP | $915 | None |

The Xeon E5450 is the older part by nearly nine years, launching in 2007 versus 2016 for the FX-9800P. It uses an older 45 nm process compared to AMD's 28 nm node. The Xeon has a higher base clock but no boost capability, while the FX-9800P can boost from 2.70 GHz to 3.60 GHz. The Xeon also carries a launch MSRP of $915, while the FX-9800P has no recorded launch MSRP.

The cache configurations are structurally different. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 6 MB of L2 per die, while the FX-9800P provides 320 KB of L1 total and 1 MB of L2 per module. Neither chip has L3 cache.

Memory support is a clear generational split. The Xeon works with DDR2 and DDR3 depending on the motherboard, while the FX-9800P uses DDR4. The FX-9800P has a recorded memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the Xeon has no recorded figure. ECC support belongs only to the Xeon. PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes on the FX-9800P surpasses the Xeon's Gen 2 support. Integrated graphics exist only on the AMD side, and the market segments are entirely different: server/workstation for Intel, mobile for AMD.

Both processors have 4 cores and 4 threads, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Both are end-of-life products. The part numbers are SLANQSLBBM for the Xeon and FM980PADY44AB for the FX-9800P. The Xeon's generation is listed as Xeon (Harpertown), while the FX-9800P's generation is FX (Bristol Ridge).