AMD PRO A10-8770E vs Intel Xeon X5550 Comparison

The AMD PRO A10-8770E and Intel Xeon X5550 are near-identical in raw compute output, with the Intel part holding a marginal lead across every benchmark in this comparison. The AMD chip, built on a modern 28 nm process with integrated graphics and DDR4 support, targets a low-power desktop segment, while the Intel Xeon is a legacy 45 nm server/workstation processor with ECC memory and hyper-threading. Their average benchmark scores are separated by less than 1%, placing both in the 24th percentile of all CPUs, making the choice entirely dependent on platform needs rather than performance.

The Verdict

The data presents an unusual case: two processors from different eras, sockets, and market segments delivering statistically equivalent performance. The Intel Xeon X5550 wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, but the margins are razor-thin, ranging from 0.4% to 0.8%. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Xeon scores 259 against the AMD's 258, a 0.4% difference that is well within run-to-run variance. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1083 vs 1075, 0.7% delta) and single-core (152 vs 151, 0.7% delta). The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23, where the Xeon leads by 0.8% in both multi-core (2580 vs 2560) and single-core (364 vs 361) tests.

For a user prioritizing raw compute performance alone, the Xeon X5550 is the nominal winner, but the margin is functionally negligible. The AMD PRO A10-8770E becomes the logical pick when platform features matter more: it integrates Radeon R7 graphics, supports DDR4 memory, and draws only 35W TDP compared to the Xeon's 95W. The Xeon counters with ECC memory support, triple-channel DDR3, and 8 threads versus the AMD's 4 threads. The Xeon is also end-of-life, while the AMD remains in active production. For new builds, the AMD's active status and modern memory standard make it more viable; for legacy server/workstation upgrades, the Xeon offers ECC and higher thread count.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by roughly a decade of process technology. The AMD PRO A10-8770E uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die. It features 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The cache hierarchy consists of 320 KB L1 and 2 MB L2, with no L3 cache present. The integrated Radeon R7 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems.

The Intel Xeon X5550, by contrast, is built on the Nehalem architecture (codename Gainestown) using a 45 nm process from Intel, with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. It also has 4 physical cores but doubles the thread count to 8 via hyper-threading. Base clock is 2.67 GHz with a boost of 3.07 GHz. The cache layout differs significantly: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and a shared 8 MB L3 cache. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, relying on a discrete GPU.

The process node difference is stark: 28 nm versus 45 nm. The AMD design crams over four times as many transistors into a slightly smaller die, reflecting the density improvements of the newer node. Despite this, the Xeon's larger L3 cache and extra threads help it match the AMD's newer architecture in multi-threaded workloads. The AMD compensates with substantially higher clocks (3.50 GHz boost vs 3.07 GHz boost), but the Xeon's architectural efficiency and cache depth level the playing field.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results tell a consistent story of near-parity with a slight Intel edge. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 259 against the AMD's 258, a 0.4% lead. This is the smallest margin in the set and effectively a tie. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon extends its lead slightly to 0.7% (1083 vs 1075). The single-core Cinebench R20 test shows the same 0.7% delta (152 vs 151), indicating that the Xeon's per-thread performance is marginally superior despite its lower clock speed.

The Cinebench R23 results reinforce this pattern. In multi-core, the Xeon scores 2580 versus 2560, a 0.8% advantage. The single-core test shows 364 versus 361, also a 0.8% lead. Across all five benchmarks, the Xeon's largest victory is a mere 0.8%, while its smallest is 0.4%. There are no significant wins in either direction; the Xeon simply edges out the AMD in every test by a margin that would likely disappear with multiple test runs.

The AMD's higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz does not translate into a single-core advantage, as the Xeon's 3.07 GHz boost with newer architectural optimizations (at the time) and larger cache compensates. The Xeon's 8 threads provide a theoretical multi-threading advantage, but the benchmarks show it only gains 0.4-0.8% over the AMD's 4 threads, suggesting that these specific Cinebench workloads are not heavily thread-scalable at this performance level.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge sharply on platform and feature specifications, even though their performance is nearly identical.

• Threads: AMD has 4, Intel has 8 (hyper-threading).
• Base Clock: AMD 2.80 GHz, Intel 2.67 GHz.
• Boost Clock: AMD 3.50 GHz, Intel 3.07 GHz.
• TDP: AMD 35W, Intel 95W (a 60W difference).
• Socket: AMD Socket AM4, Intel Socket 1366.
• Process Node: AMD 28 nm, Intel 45 nm.
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries, Intel.
• Transistors: AMD 3,100 million, Intel 731 million.
• Die Size: AMD 250 mm², Intel 263 mm².
• L1 Cache: AMD 320 KB, Intel 64 KB per core.
• L2 Cache: AMD 2 MB, Intel 256 KB per core.
• L3 Cache: AMD none, Intel 8 MB shared.
• Memory Support: AMD DDR4, Intel DDR3.
• Memory Bus: AMD Dual-channel, Intel Triple-channel.
• Memory Bandwidth: AMD 38.4 GB/s, Intel not specified.
• ECC Memory: AMD false, Intel true.
• PCIe: AMD Gen 3, Intel Gen 2.
• Integrated Graphics: AMD Radeon R7, Intel none.
• Market Segment: AMD Desktop, Intel Server/Workstation.
• Production Status: AMD Active, Intel End-of-life.
• Release Date: AMD not specified, Intel 2009-03-29.
• Part Number: AMD AD877BAHM44AB, Intel SLBF5.

The most consequential differences are the 60W TDP gap, the integrated GPU on the AMD, the ECC support on the Intel, and the memory standards. The AMD's 35W TDP makes it suitable for low-power or fanless systems, while the Intel's 95W requires more robust cooling. The AMD's DDR4 support offers modern bandwidth and upgrade paths, while the Intel's triple-channel DDR3 provides higher theoretical bandwidth but on an obsolete platform.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon X5550 wins all multi-core benchmarks, but by margins under 1%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2580 versus the AMD's 2560, a 0.8% delta. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows 1083 versus 1075 (0.7% delta), and Cinebench R15 shows 259 versus 258 (0.4% delta).

Q: Does the AMD PRO A10-8770E have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it features Radeon R7 integrated graphics, which the Intel Xeon X5550 lacks entirely. This allows the AMD to power a display without a discrete GPU, making it suitable for basic desktop systems.

Q: Can the Intel Xeon X5550 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon supports ECC memory, while the AMD PRO A10-8770E does not. This makes the Xeon suitable for error-correcting workloads in server or workstation environments where data integrity is critical.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770E has a TDP of 35W, while the Intel Xeon X5550 has a TDP of 95W. This 60W difference makes the AMD far more power-efficient and easier to cool, while the Xeon requires more substantial thermal solutions.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8770E has an average benchmark score of 895, while the Intel Xeon X5550 has 888. The AMD's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-5300U, matches its 895 score exactly, while the Xeon's closest competitor, the Intel Core i3-6100, also matches its 888 score.

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Xeon X5550 has 8 threads via hyper-threading, while the AMD PRO A10-8770E has only 4 threads. Despite this 2x thread advantage, the Xeon's benchmark lead over the AMD remains under 1%, indicating limited scaling in these specific tests.