AMD PRO A10-8770E vs Intel Xeon W3540 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, if narrow, advantage for the Intel Xeon W3540 across every shared Cinebench test. In the five head-to-head comparisons available, the Xeon W3540 wins all five, with margins ranging from 3.5% to 4%. The most significant gap appears in the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the Xeon scores 157 against the AMD PRO A10-8770E's 151, a 4% difference. The multi-core tests are slightly tighter: in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon posts 267 versus 258, a 3.5% lead, and in Cinebench R20 multi-core, the scores are 1113 and 1075, again a 3.5% margin.

The Cinebench R23 results mirror this pattern. The Xeon W3540 records 2652 in multi-core, while the AMD PRO A10-8770E manages 2560, a 3.6% edge. Single-core in R23 sees the Xeon at 374 and the AMD at 361, also a 3.6% gap. Notably, the AMD part has additional Geekbench scores in the database, but no corresponding Geekbench result exists for the Xeon, so those cannot be compared directly. The overall pattern is one of a small but consistent performance lead for the Intel chip in every measurable shared workload.

Context from the wider database reinforces this picture. The Xeon W3540's average benchmark score is 913, placing it at the 24th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD PRO A12-9800E (average score 910, 0.3% behind) and the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U (average score 908, 0.5% behind). The AMD PRO A10-8770E, meanwhile, averages 895, also at the 24th percentile, with rivals including the Intel Core i5-5300U and Intel Pentium G4600T, both at 895 with a 0% delta. So while the two processors land in the same percentile tier, the Xeon sits slightly higher in absolute average score, and its nearest competitors are marginally faster than the AMD part's nearest competitors.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon W3540 wins all five shared Cinebench tests. The AMD PRO A10-8770E does not record a win in any of the compared benchmarks.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon W3540 leads by 3.5% in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core, and by 3.6% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The scores are 267 vs 258, 1113 vs 1075, and 2652 vs 2560, respectively.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the AMD PRO A10-8770E wins?

A: In the head-to-head dataset, no. The AMD part has two additional Geekbench scores (1291 multi-core, 572 single-core), but the Xeon has no Geekbench entry, so those cannot be compared.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The Xeon W3540 leads by 4% in Cinebench R20 single-core (157 vs 151) and by 3.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core (374 vs 361).

Q: How do the two processors rank relative to other CPUs?

A: Both sit at the 24th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon's average benchmark score is 913, slightly ahead of the AMD part's 895.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770E has a higher boost clock at 3.50 GHz, versus 3.20 GHz for the Xeon W3540. Despite this, the Xeon wins all shared benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if modest, winner: the Intel Xeon W3540. It outperforms the AMD PRO A10-8770E in every shared benchmark, with margins between 3.5% and 4%. The largest advantage is in single-core throughput, where the Xeon leads by 4% in R20 and 3.6% in R23. Multi-core leads are nearly as consistent, hovering at 3.5% to 3.6%. For workloads that rely on Cinebench-style rendering, the Xeon W3540 is the more capable processor.

However, the AMD PRO A10-8770E is not without its own context. It is an active, currently produced part, whereas the Xeon is end-of-life. The AMD chip also carries integrated graphics (Radeon R7), which the Xeon lacks entirely. For a system that needs a display output without a discrete GPU, the AMD part is the only option that can function standalone. The Xeon is a server/workstation part, so it assumes a dedicated graphics card is present.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the Xeon's edge: 913 versus 895, a difference of about 2%. Both processors sit at the 24th percentile, meaning they occupy the same performance tier among all CPUs. The Xeon's nearest rivals are slightly faster than the AMD part's nearest rivals, which suggests the Xeon has a marginally stronger competitive position. In absolute terms, the Xeon W3540 is the better performer in every measured dimension, but the AMD part offers platform features that the Xeon cannot match.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several core specifications. The Intel Xeon W3540 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD PRO A10-8770E also has 4 cores but only 4 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 2.93 GHz with a boost of 3.20 GHz; the AMD part runs at 2.80 GHz base and boosts to 3.50 GHz. Thermal design power is a major differentiator: the Xeon draws 130 watts, while the AMD part is rated at just 35 watts.

The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, the AMD part uses AMD Socket AM4. Memory support also diverges: the Xeon supports DDR3 with a triple-channel bus, while the AMD part supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus. The AMD chip's memory bandwidth is listed as 38.4 GB/s; the Xeon's memory bandwidth is not recorded. The AMD PRO A10-8770E supports PCIe Gen 3, whereas the Xeon is limited to PCIe Gen 2. The AMD part includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. Finally, the Xeon supports ECC memory, while the AMD part does not.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is substantial. The Intel Xeon W3540 is built on the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, manufactured on a 45 nm process at Intel. It contains 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. Its cache layout is per-core: 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

The AMD PRO A10-8770E uses the Excavator architecture, codenamed Carrizo, fabricated on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,100 million transistors onto a 250 mm² die, a far higher transistor count on a slightly smaller die. Its cache is structured differently: 320 KB of L1 total and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. The AMD part lacks the shared L3 that the Xeon provides.

The memory controller and I/O also reflect their respective eras. The Xeon's triple-channel DDR3 support and PCIe Gen 2 are older standards, while the AMD part's dual-channel DDR4 and PCIe Gen 3 are more modern. The AMD chip also integrates a Radeon R7 GPU, a feature absent from the Xeon. The Xeon is marked as a server/workstation part and is end-of-life, while the AMD part is an active desktop processor. Both are locked (multiplier not unlocked), so neither offers manual overclocking via the multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W3540 wins in raw compute performance. Every shared Cinebench test, whether single-core or multi-core, goes to the Xeon with margins from 3.5% to 4%. For rendering workloads, CPU-bound calculations, or any task that relies heavily on core throughput, the data shows the Xeon is the better choice. Its 8 threads also give it a structural advantage in heavily threaded applications, even though the benchmark deltas are modest.

The AMD PRO A10-8770E wins in platform integration and efficiency. Its 35 watt TDP is dramatically lower than the Xeon's 130 watts, making it suitable for compact, low-power systems. It includes a Radeon R7 integrated GPU, so it can run a complete system without a discrete graphics card. It supports DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3, which are more current standards. It is also an active product, not end-of-life like the Xeon.

For a workstation or server that already has a dedicated GPU and needs maximum CPU performance, the Xeon W3540 is the clear pick from the data. For a desktop or embedded application where power draw, integrated graphics, and modern platform support matter more than a few percentage points of Cinebench score, the AMD PRO A10-8770E offers capabilities the Xeon simply does not have. The benchmark data favors Intel, but the platform data tells a different story, and the choice depends on which factors matter more for the intended use.