AMD FX-9830P vs Intel Xeon W3565 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FX-9830P has an average benchmark score of 1006, while the Intel Xeon W3565 scores 993. The AMD part holds a slight edge in the aggregate metric, though both sit at the 27th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon W3565 win in every head-to-head benchmark?

A: Yes. The data records five head-to-head comparisons, and the Intel part wins all five. The margins are narrow, ranging from a 2.4% advantage in Cinebench R20 single-core to a 2.8% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, and R23 multi-core.

Q: How do their core and thread counts differ?

A: Both have 4 cores, but the AMD FX-9830P runs 4 threads while the Intel Xeon W3565 runs 8 threads. The Intel part's Hyper-Threading effectively doubles the thread count, which is a key structural difference between the two.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The AMD FX-9830P has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The Intel Xeon W3565 has a higher base clock of 3.20 GHz but a lower boost clock of 3.47 GHz. The AMD chip boosts higher, yet the Intel chip wins the single-core tests in the recorded data.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The AMD FX-9830P supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon W3565 supports DDR3 memory on a triple-channel bus, and the database does not list a bandwidth figure for it.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD FX-9830P has integrated graphics, specifically a Radeon R7 8CU. The Intel Xeon W3565 has no integrated graphics, which is consistent with its server/workstation market segment.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FX-9830P and Intel Xeon W3565 come from different design philosophies and different eras of silicon. The AMD part uses the Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries with 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The Intel part uses the Nehalem architecture under the Bloomfield codename, built on a 45 nm process at Intel with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The transistor counts are striking: AMD packs over four times as many transistors into a slightly smaller die, yet the Intel part holds its own in every recorded benchmark.

Cache layouts diverge significantly. The AMD FX-9830P carries 320 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 per module, with no L3 cache listed. The Intel Xeon W3565 carries 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 8 MB L3 cache. The presence of a large shared L3 cache on the Intel part likely helps it maintain competitive scores despite the older process node.

Memory architecture also differs. The AMD part runs DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The Intel part runs DDR3 on a triple-channel bus and supports ECC memory, a hallmark of its server/workstation positioning. PCIe support differs as well: the AMD chip lists Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel chip lists Gen 2 without a lane count in the database.

Market positioning tells a clear story. The AMD FX-9830P is a mobile part on AMD Socket FP4, with integrated Radeon R7 8CU graphics. The Intel Xeon W3565 is a server/workstation part on Intel Socket 1366 with no integrated graphics. The TDP difference is enormous: 35 watts for AMD versus 130 watts for Intel. The AMD part's low power draw and integrated GPU make it suited for laptops, while the Intel part's high power budget reflects desktop workstation expectations.

Release dates are far apart. The Intel Xeon W3565 launched on 2009-10-31, while the AMD FX-9830P launched on 2016-05-30. Both are end-of-life parts. The Intel chip is nearly seven years older, yet the benchmark data shows it slightly ahead in every head-to-head test. That durability reflects the Nehalem architecture's efficiency in threaded workloads, especially given the 8-thread advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes five head-to-head comparisons, and the Intel Xeon W3565 wins all of them. The margins are consistent and small, clustering around 2.7% to 2.8%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel part scores 290 against 282 for AMD, a 2.8% delta. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, Intel scores 1212 against 1178, again a 2.8% delta. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23 multi-core: 2888 for Intel versus 2806 for AMD, another 2.8% delta.

Single-core tests show a similar story with slightly smaller margins. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel part scores 170 against 166, a 2.4% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 407 against 396, a 2.7% delta. The consistent advantage across both multi-core and single-core tests suggests the Intel part's architectural efficiency and higher base clock outweigh the AMD part's higher boost clock and newer process node.

The AMD FX-9830P does not win a single head-to-head test in the database. Its wins column is 0, while the Intel Xeon W3565 has 5 wins. However, the aggregate average benchmark score tells a slightly different story: AMD leads 1006 to 993. This discrepancy arises because the AMD part has additional Geekbench results in its benchmark set (multi-core 1606 and single-core 605) that are not part of the head-to-head comparisons. Those extra scores lift AMD's average above Intel's, even though Intel wins every direct comparison.

The practical interpretation is that these two processors are extremely close in raw performance. A 2.8% difference in multi-core rendering is within the range of run-to-run variance for many workloads. But the direction is consistent: Intel's 8 threads and shared L3 cache give it a steady, if modest, advantage in the Cinebench suite. The AMD part's higher average score comes from a broader benchmark set, not from beating Intel in any shared test.

Geekbench results for the AMD part are recorded at 1606 multi-core and 605 single-core. There are no comparable Geekbench scores for the Intel part in the database, so a direct Geekbench comparison is not possible. The AMD part's average score of 1006 places it alongside the Intel Core i7-880 and Intel Core i5-10210Y, both with an average score of 1006 and a 0% delta. The Intel Xeon W3565's average of 993 places it alongside the Intel Core i7-965 and AMD Phenom II X6 1065T, both at 993 with 0% delta.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but narrow picture. The Intel Xeon W3565 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database, with margins between 2.4% and 2.8%. If the decision rests solely on the shared Cinebench tests, the Intel part is the better performer. Its 8 threads and 8 MB shared L3 cache give it an edge in both multi-core and single-core rendering workloads, despite the older architecture and much higher power draw.

The AMD FX-9830P, however, posts a higher average benchmark score overall because its benchmark set includes Geekbench results that the Intel part lacks. The AMD part also offers integrated graphics, DDR4 memory support, and a dramatically lower TDP of 35 watts versus 130 watts. For a mobile or power-constrained system, the AMD part is the only sensible choice. For a workstation where raw rendering performance matters most, the Intel part's consistent lead in every shared test makes it the data-backed pick.

Neither processor is a winner by a large margin. The 27th percentile ranking for both parts indicates they sit at a similar position in the overall CPU landscape. Buyers should weigh the Intel part's benchmark wins against the AMD part's power efficiency, integrated graphics, and higher aggregate score. The database shows a near-tie with a slight performance edge to Intel, but a massive efficiency edge to AMD.

Specification Differences

• Threads: AMD FX-9830P has 4 threads; Intel Xeon W3565 has 8 threads.
• Base clock: AMD FX-9830P runs at 3.00 GHz; Intel Xeon W3565 runs at 3.20 GHz.
• Boost clock: AMD FX-9830P boosts to 3.70 GHz; Intel Xeon W3565 boosts to 3.47 GHz.
• TDP: AMD FX-9830P draws 35 watts; Intel Xeon W3565 draws 130 watts.
• Socket: AMD FX-9830P uses AMD Socket FP4; Intel Xeon W3565 uses Intel Socket 1366.
• Architecture: AMD FX-9830P uses Excavator; Intel Xeon W3565 uses Nehalem.
• Codename: AMD FX-9830P is Bristol Ridge; Intel Xeon W3565 is Bloomfield.
• Process node: AMD FX-9830P is 28 nm; Intel Xeon W3565 is 45 nm.
• Foundry: AMD FX-9830P uses GlobalFoundries; Intel Xeon W3565 uses Intel.
• Transistors: AMD FX-9830P has 3,100 million; Intel Xeon W3565 has 731 million.
• Die size: AMD FX-9830P is 250 mm²; Intel Xeon W3565 is 263 mm².
• L1 cache: AMD FX-9830P has 320 KB total; Intel Xeon W3565 has 64 KB per core.
• L2 cache: AMD FX-9830P has 1 MB per module; Intel Xeon W3565 has 256 KB per core.
• L3 cache: AMD FX-9830P has none listed; Intel Xeon W3565 has 8 MB shared.
• Memory support: AMD FX-9830P uses DDR4; Intel Xeon W3565 uses DDR3.
• Memory bus: AMD FX-9830P is dual-channel; Intel Xeon W3565 is triple-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: AMD FX-9830P has 38.4 GB/s; Intel Xeon W3565 has no figure listed.
• ECC memory: AMD FX-9830P does not support ECC; Intel Xeon W3565 supports ECC.
• PCIe: AMD FX-9830P is Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only); Intel Xeon W3565 is Gen 2.
• Integrated graphics: AMD FX-9830P has Radeon R7 8CU; Intel Xeon W3565 has none.
• Market segment: AMD FX-9830P is mobile; Intel Xeon W3565 is server/workstation.
• Release date: AMD FX-9830P launched 2016-05-30; Intel Xeon W3565 launched 2009-10-31.
• Part number: AMD FX-9830P is FM983PAEY44AB; Intel Xeon W3565 is SLBEV.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W3565 wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. Its advantages are small but consistent: 2.8% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 2.8% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, 2.4% in Cinebench R20 single-core, 2.8% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and 2.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core. The 8-thread configuration and shared 8 MB L3 cache appear to drive these wins, making the Intel part the better choice for rendering workloads that scale with thread count. Its ECC memory support also matters for workstation reliability scenarios.

The AMD FX-9830P wins in aggregate average score, 1006 versus 993, thanks to its Geekbench results of 1606 multi-core and 605 single-core, which are absent from the Intel part's record. The AMD part also wins decisively on efficiency: 35 watts versus 130 watts makes it suitable for laptops and compact systems. Its integrated Radeon R7 8CU graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU in basic display tasks. DDR4 memory support and PCIe Gen 3 connectivity give it a modern platform advantage. For mobile computing, low-power builds, or systems needing integrated graphics, the AMD FX-9830P is the clear choice. For raw rendering performance in a workstation context, the Intel Xeon W3565 holds the edge in every shared test.