CPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Xeon W5580 wins every head-to-head comparison, though by surprisingly narrow margins given the seven-year gap between the two parts. Across five Cinebench tests, the Xeon W5580 takes all five wins, with the AMD FX-9830P failing to secure a single victory.

The largest margin comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Xeon W5580 scores 296 against the FX-9830P's 282, a 5% advantage. That's the only test where the gap exceeds 4.8%. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon posts 1234 versus 1178, and in R20 single-core it leads 174 to 166. Both represent a 4.8% edge. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23: multi-core shows 2940 against 2806, and single-core shows 415 against 396, again a 4.8% delta.

These margins are modest for a server-class processor from 2009 facing a mobile chip from 2016. The Xeon W5580's 8 threads versus the FX-9830P's 4 threads would suggest a larger multi-threaded gap, but the AMD part's higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz versus 3.47 GHz helps close the distance. The data indicates a consistent, if narrow, Intel advantage across every workload tested.

In the broader context, both processors sit near the bottom of the performance distribution. The Xeon W5580 ranks in the 28th percentile among all CPUs, while the FX-9830P sits just below at the 27th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 1012 for the Xeon and 1006 for the FX. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-2675QM at an identical 1012 average score, and the Core i5-2300 at 1014 (0.2% behind). The FX-9830P matches the Core i7-880 and Core i5-10210Y at 1006, while trailing the Intel Processor N100 by 0.1%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon W5580 wins with a score of 2940, beating the AMD FX-9830P's 2806 by 4.8%.

Q: Is the AMD FX-9830P competitive in single-core performance?

A: It is close but still behind. The FX-9830P scores 396 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Xeon W5580 leads at 415, a 4.8% difference.

Q: How do these chips compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Xeon W5580 averages 1012, while the FX-9830P averages 1006. The Xeon's nearest rival, the Core i7-2675QM, matches it exactly at 1012, while the FX-9830P ties the Core i7-880 and Core i5-10210Y at 1006.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in any test?

A: The largest delta is 5%, found in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Xeon W5580 scores 296 versus 282 for the FX-9830P.

Q: Does the AMD chip win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows five wins for the Intel Xeon W5580 and zero wins for the AMD FX-9830P.

Q: How do their overall percentile rankings compare?

A: The Xeon W5580 sits at the 28th percentile of all CPUs, slightly ahead of the FX-9830P at the 27th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon W5580 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Gainestown, built on a 45 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It packs 731 million transistors into a 263 mm² die. The AMD FX-9830P, by contrast, uses the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, fabricated on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The Xeon W5580 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, backed by a shared 8 MB L3 cache. The FX-9830P offers 320 KB of total L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 per module, with no L3 cache at all. AMD's module-based design, where two cores share a 1 MB L2 block, reflects the Excavator architecture's different approach to cache hierarchy.

Memory support also differs. The Xeon W5580 uses DDR3 memory over a triple-channel bus with 32.0 GB/s of bandwidth and supports ECC memory. The FX-9830P uses DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, achieving a higher 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth but with no ECC support. The AMD part also integrates a Radeon R7 8CU graphics core, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. PCIe connectivity differs too: the Xeon provides Gen 2, while the FX-9830P offers Gen 3 with 8 CPU-only lanes.

The transistor count disparity is notable: AMD's chip has over four times the transistors of Intel's, yet delivers lower performance in every benchmark. This reflects the Excavator architecture's emphasis on integrated graphics and mobile efficiency rather than raw compute throughput.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon W5580 | AMD FX-9830P |

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

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.47 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 130 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | AMD Socket FP4 |

| Process Node | 45 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 731 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 263 mm² | 250 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per module) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.0 GB/s | 38.4 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 | 2009-03-29 | 2016-05-30 |

| Launch MSRP | $1600 | Not available |

| Part Number | SLBF2 | FM983PAEY44AB |

The Xeon W5580 draws 130 W, nearly four times the FX-9830P's 35 W, yet the AMD chip's higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz cannot overcome the Intel part's efficiency disadvantage in pure performance terms. The Xeon also lacks a multiplier unlock, as does the AMD part.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear, if narrow, recommendation for the Intel Xeon W5580 in pure compute performance. It wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, with deltas ranging from 4.8% to 5%. Its multi-threaded advantage stems from 8 threads versus 4, and its single-core lead persists across every Cinebench iteration despite the FX-9830P's higher boost clock.

However, the context matters. The Xeon W5580 is a server/workstation part with a 130 W TDP, launched in 2009 at a $1600 launch MSRP. The FX-9830P is a mobile chip drawing just 35 W, released in 2016. The AMD part offers integrated Radeon R7 graphics, DDR4 support with higher bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 3 connectivity, features the Intel chip lacks entirely. For a system requiring ECC memory or triple-channel DDR3 bandwidth, the Xeon W5580 is the only choice here. For a compact, low-power mobile build with integrated graphics, the FX-9830P provides a more modern feature set at a fraction of the power draw.

The performance gap is real but modest: the Xeon leads by under 5% in most tests, and both chips sit within one percentile point of each other globally (28th versus 27th). Buyers prioritizing the last few percent of Cinebench performance should select the Xeon W5580, while those valuing lower power consumption, integrated graphics, and newer memory and PCIe standards should choose the FX-9830P. The data does not support a decisive victory for either part; it supports a trade-off between raw compute and platform modernity.