AMD PRO A10-8770 vs Intel Xeon E5620 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably consistent picture across all five Cinebench tests: the AMD PRO A10-8770 wins every single head-to-head matchup, but by a narrow, uniform margin. In each benchmark, the AMD part edges out the Intel Xeon E5620 by exactly 1.7%. This consistency suggests the performance gap is systemic rather than workload-specific.

Looking at the multi-core results first, the AMD PRO A10-8770 scores 306 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, while the Intel Xeon E5620 trails at 301. The margin widens slightly in absolute terms as the workload scales: in Cinebench R20 multi-core, the AMD reaches 1276 versus 1255 for the Intel, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD posts 3040 against the Intel's 2989. Despite the Intel model having access to twice as many threads (8 threads versus 4), the AMD part still manages to stay ahead, which points to a significant per-clock efficiency advantage.

The single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the AMD PRO A10-8770 scores 180, and the Intel Xeon E5620 scores 177. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD reaches 429 while the Intel reaches 422. Again, the 1.7% delta repeats itself exactly in both single-core and multi-core runs.

Relative to their own peer groups, the two CPUs sit extremely close in the database's overall rankings. The AMD PRO A10-8770 records an average benchmark score of 1046 and lands in the 29th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Xeon E5620 averages 1029 and sits at the 28th percentile. The AMD's closest rivals include the Intel Core i5-6350HQ at an identical average score of 1046 (0% delta), the AMD Athlon X4 950 at 1047 (-0.1%), the AMD PRO A10-9700 at 1045 (+0.1%), and the Intel Pentium Gold G5620 at 1045 (+0.1%). The Intel Xeon's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B at 1027 (+0.2%), the Intel Pentium G4560 at 1031 (-0.2%), the Intel Core i7-5650U at 1027 (+0.2%), and the Intel Core i3-4340 at 1026 (+0.3%).

The data indicates that neither processor is a standout in the broader market; both occupy the lower-middle tier. The AMD's 1.7% lead is consistent and real, but it is also marginal in real-world terms. The Xeon, despite its age and end-of-life status, remains close because its 8 threads help it mask the lower clock speed in threaded workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A10-8770 wins every recorded benchmark, but the nature of its victory varies according to the workload. In single-core tests, the AMD's higher base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 3.80 GHz give it a direct advantage. The Intel Xeon E5620 operates at a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 2.67 GHz, which is substantially lower. The AMD's 1.7% lead in single-core tasks reflects this clock speed advantage, though the margin is smaller than the clock ratio alone would suggest, indicating that the Intel's Westmere architecture delivers higher instructions per clock.

In multi-core workloads, the Intel's 8 threads should theoretically help it close the gap, and indeed it does. The AMD still wins, but only by the same 1.7% margin as in single-core tests. This means the AMD's per-thread performance advantage (from higher clocks and a newer architecture) exactly offsets the Intel's thread-count advantage. For applications that are lightly threaded, the AMD PRO A10-8770 is the appropriate choice. For heavily threaded server-style workloads, the Intel Xeon E5620 may still be viable due to its 8 threads, though the recorded data shows the AMD still holds the edge.

The integrated graphics situation favors the AMD decisively. The AMD PRO A10-8770 includes a Radeon R7 integrated GPU, whereas the Intel Xeon E5620 has no integrated graphics. Any system built around the Intel requires a discrete graphics card, while the AMD can drive a display from the motherboard. This matters for basic desktop usage or a workstation without a dedicated GPU.

Memory support also splits the two. The AMD uses DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a rated 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel uses DDR3 with a triple-channel bus, but the database does not record a bandwidth figure for it. The AMD's DDR4 support is more modern, and its integrated memory controller likely offers lower latency. On the other hand, the Intel supports ECC memory, while the AMD does not. For users who require error-correcting memory for long-running compute tasks, the Intel is the only option.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 has a higher average benchmark score of 1024, compared to the Intel Xeon E5620's average of 1023.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E5620 outperform the AMD in any Cinebench test?

A: No. The recorded data shows the AMD PRO A10-8770 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, including both multi-core and single-core runs.

Q: What is the difference in memory support between the two?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s and does not support ECC. The Intel Xeon E5620 supports DDR3 with triple-channel memory and does support ECC.

Q: Which processor has more threads available?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 has 8 threads (4 cores with Hyper-Threading), while the AMD PRO A10-8770 has 4 threads (4 cores without SMT).

Q: What is the production status of each?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770 is listed as Active, while the Intel Xeon E5620 is listed as End-of-life.

Q: How do the two compare in single-core Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD scores 429, and the Intel scores 422, giving the AMD a 1.7% advantage.

Specification Differences

The physical specifications differ sharply. The AMD PRO A10-8770 uses the AMD Socket AM4, while the Intel Xeon E5620 uses the Intel Socket 1366. The AMD has a 65W TDP, the Intel has an 80W TDP. The AMD's base clock is 3.50 GHz with a boost of 3.80 GHz; the Intel's base is 2.40 GHz with a boost of 2.67 GHz. The AMD has 4 cores and 4 threads; the Intel has 4 cores and 8 threads.

The cache layout is different. The AMD has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache. The Intel has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD is built on a 28 nm process, the Intel on a 32 nm process. The AMD has 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die, the Intel has 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. The AMD supports PCIe Gen 3, the Intel supports PCIe Gen 2.

Memory support differs as noted: DDR4 dual-channel with a recorded bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s for the AMD, DDR3 triple-channel for the Intel with no recorded bandwidth. The AMD does not support ECC, the Intel does. The AMD includes a Radeon R7 integrated GPU; the Intel has none. The AMD is a Desktop part, the Intel is a Server/Workstation part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is substantial. The AMD PRO A10-8770 uses the Excavator architecture, codenamed Carrizo, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Intel Xeon E5620 uses the Westmere architecture, codenamed Westmere-EP, built on a 32 nm process at Intel. The AMD's process node is more advanced, but the Intel's Westmere design is optimized for server efficiency.

The AMD's architecture emphasizes high clocks and integrated graphics. It has 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die, which is a dense design for its era. The Intel has 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die, a much lower density. The Intel compensates with a large 12 MB shared L3 cache, while the AMD has no L3 cache at all. The AMD's 2 MB L2 cache must serve all cores, while the Intel's per-core L2 cache (256 KB per core) plus the large L3 cache allows for more data locality in threaded workloads.

The Intel's Westmere architecture supports 8 threads through Hyper-Threading, which is a major difference. The AMD's Excavator architecture does not support SMT, so it is limited to 4 threads. This explains why the Intel can stay close in multi-core tests despite having much lower clocks.

The instruction set features differ too. The AMD supports DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3, the Intel supports DDR3 and PCIe Gen 2. The AMD includes an integrated Radeon R7, which is not present on the Intel. The Intel supports ECC memory, which aligns with its server/workstation positioning.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD PRO A10-8770 is the faster processor in every measured Cinebench test. It holds a 1.7% lead across single-core and multi-core workloads. Its average benchmark score is higher (1024 vs 1023), and its percentile ranking is one point higher (29th vs 28th). For users who do not need ECC memory and who want integrated graphics, the AMD is the clear choice. It also draws less power (65W vs 80W) and supports the modern DDR4 memory standard and PCIe Gen 3.

The Intel Xeon E5620 has its own niche. It supports ECC memory, which the AMD does not. It has 8 threads, which may be preferable in specific multi-threaded server applications, even though the data shows it still loses in Cinebench multi-core. It is end-of-life, but the AMD is active. The Intel's triple-channel memory bus is an older standard, but it may be paired with existing DDR3 server platforms.

For a desktop or workstation build with integrated graphics, the AMD PRO A10-8770 is the better option. For a server needing ECC support, the Intel Xeon E5620 is the only one of the two that can be considered. The data shows that in raw compute, the AMD wins all five tests, but the Intel's thread count and ECC support give it specific use cases where it is the correct part. The 1.7% performance delta is small, so the decision should be driven by platform requirements rather than raw speed.