AMD FX-9800P vs Intel Xeon X5460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a consistent, narrow advantage for the Intel Xeon X5460 across all five shared Cinebench tests. The Xeon wins every comparison, with deltas ranging from 4.8% to 5.1%. This is a remarkably uniform margin, suggesting the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon X5460 scores 220 against the AMD FX-9800P’s 210, a 4.8% lead. The R20 multicore test shows a similar pattern: 920 versus 876, a 5.0% difference. Single-core results are equally decisive. The R20 single-core run has the Xeon at 129 and the AMD at 123, a 4.9% edge. In R23 single-core, the Xeon posts 309 versus 294, a 5.1% gap, the largest margin recorded in any test. The R23 multicore result is 2191 for the Xeon and 2088 for the AMD, a 4.9% difference.

The FX-9800P does have additional benchmark data in the database, specifically Geekbench results. It scores 1127 in Geekbench multicore and 498 in single-core. The Xeon X5460 lacks Geekbench entries, so no direct head-to-head comparison is possible for those tests. The AMD’s Geekbench scores are not part of the shared test set, meaning the only comparable metrics are the five Cinebench runs, all of which favor Intel.

The consistency of the delta, hovering near 5% in every test, indicates that neither architecture gains ground as the workload changes. The Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.17 GHz versus the FX-9800P’s 2.70 GHz base clock is the most obvious contributor, but the AMD can boost to 3.60 GHz, which should narrow the gap in lightly threaded tasks. The data does not show that happening. Even in single-core tests, where boost clocks matter most, the Xeon maintains its lead. This suggests the Intel core has higher per-clock efficiency in Cinebench, despite the AMD’s higher maximum frequency.

Average benchmark scores reflect the same picture. The Xeon X5460 averages 754 across its recorded tests, while the FX-9800P averages 745. Both processors sit at the 20th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they target similar performance tiers. The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-3230M at 754 (a 0.1% deficit) and the Intel Xeon E5450 at 756 (a 0.3% deficit). The AMD’s nearest rivals include the AMD A10 PRO-7800B at 746 (a 0.1% deficit) and the Intel Xeon E5520 at 742, which the FX-9800P leads by 0.5%. These proximity scores confirm that both chips sit in the same performance class, with the Xeon holding a small but repeatable edge.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon X5460 is a Core 2 architecture part, codenamed Harpertown, built on Intel’s 45 nm process node. It is a server and workstation product with a 120 W TDP, released in November 2007. The AMD FX-9800P uses the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, on GlobalFoundries’ 28 nm process. It is a mobile part with a 15 W TDP, released in May 2016. The nine-year gap in release dates explains much of the technological divergence.

The Xeon houses 820 million transistors across a dual-die package with each die measuring 107 mm². The FX-9800P integrates 3,100 million transistors on a single 250 mm² die. The AMD’s higher transistor count reflects its integrated graphics and newer process, though the Xeon’s lower count is typical of its older, simpler design.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 6 MB of L2 per die. The FX-9800P has 320 KB of total L1 and 1 MB of L2 per module. Neither processor has L3 cache. The AMD’s L2 is organized by module, reflecting its Excavator design where two cores share a module. The Xeon’s L2 is per die, with two dies in the package.

Memory support is a clear generational split. The Xeon supports DDR2 or DDR3 depending on the motherboard, with dual-channel memory bus. The FX-9800P supports DDR4 natively and also uses a dual-channel memory bus. The AMD lists a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the Xeon has no recorded bandwidth figure. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a server requirement. The FX-9800P does not support ECC.

PCIe generations differ. The Xeon offers PCIe Gen 2, while the FX-9800P provides PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes available from the CPU only. The AMD also integrates a Radeon R7 8CU graphics unit, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Xeon requires a discrete GPU, consistent with its server orientation.

The sockets are incompatible. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 771, while the FX-9800P uses AMD Socket FP4. The Xeon’s multiplier is locked, as is the AMD’s. The Xeon’s part number is SLANPSLBBA, and the AMD’s is FM980PADY44AB. The Xeon launch MSRP was $1172, but the AMD has no recorded launch MSRP.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The Xeon targets the server and workstation market segment, while the FX-9800P targets mobile. These are fundamentally different product categories, yet they land at the same performance percentile, which makes the comparison unusual but valid from a raw throughput standpoint.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon X5460 has a base clock of 3.17 GHz. The AMD FX-9800P has a base clock of 2.70 GHz but offers a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, which the Xeon lacks entirely.

Q: How much faster is the Xeon in multicore Cinebench R23?

A: The Xeon X5460 scores 2191 versus the FX-9800P’s 2088 in Cinebench R23 multicore, a 4.9% advantage for Intel.

Q: Does the AMD FX-9800P have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the FX-9800P includes a Radeon R7 8CU integrated graphics unit. The Xeon X5460 has no integrated graphics, requiring a separate graphics card.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon X5460 supports ECC memory. The AMD FX-9800P does not support ECC.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Xeon X5460 has a 120 W TDP. The FX-9800P has a 15 W TDP, making the AMD far more power-efficient for mobile use.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the FX-9800P wins?

A: In the shared head-to-head Cinebench tests, the FX-9800P wins none of the five comparisons. The Xeon wins all five, with deltas between 4.8% and 5.1%. The AMD does have Geekbench scores, but the Xeon has no Geekbench results to compare.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but modest performance winner. The Intel Xeon X5460 outperforms the AMD FX-9800P in every shared benchmark, with margins that never exceed 5.1%. The Xeon’s average benchmark score of 754 sits above the AMD’s 745, and both occupy the 20th percentile in the database. For raw CPU throughput in Cinebench workloads, the Xeon is the better choice.

However, context matters. The Xeon is a server and workstation part with a 120 W TDP, no integrated graphics, and a requirement for ECC-capable motherboards with Socket 771. The FX-9800P is a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, integrated Radeon R7 8CU graphics, DDR4 support, and PCIe Gen 3. The AMD is designed for low-power laptops, while the Xeon is built for rack servers where power draw is secondary.

Users who need server-class reliability, ECC memory, and maximum compute performance in legacy Socket 771 platforms should select the Xeon X5460. Its 5% lead in Cinebench is consistent and repeatable. Users who need a mobile-capable chip with integrated graphics, modern DDR4 memory, and dramatically lower power consumption should select the FX-9800P. The performance gap is small enough that the AMD’s feature set can outweigh the Xeon’s benchmark advantage for non-server applications.

The Xeon’s higher single-core scores (309 versus 294 in R23 single-core) suggest better responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks, despite the AMD’s higher boost clock. The AMD’s integrated graphics and lower TDP make it the only viable option for compact, battery-powered systems. Neither chip is current, and both are end-of-life, but the decision hinges on platform requirements rather than raw speed.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon X5460 | AMD FX-9800P |

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

| Base Clock | 3.17 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 120 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 | Not 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 | $1172 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SLANPSLBBA | FM980PADY44AB |

The Xeon’s dual-die package explains its larger total die area (214 mm² combined) despite fewer transistors. The AMD’s single die with integrated graphics accounts for its higher transistor count and larger individual die size. Memory support reflects the era: the Xeon relies on DDR2 or DDR3, while the AMD natively supports DDR4. The Xeon’s ECC capability and server socket align with its workstation purpose, while the AMD’s mobile socket, lower TDP, and integrated graphics target portable systems.