AMD PRO A10-8850B vs Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 Comparison

Both the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 and the AMD PRO A10-8850B land in the 31st percentile of all CPUs, with identical average benchmark scores of 1098. That parity, however, masks a complete sweep: the Xeon wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the dataset, while the AMD part’s higher base clock and integrated graphics point to a different kind of usefulness. The data suggests these are not equivalent chips with different badges, but rather two processors whose shared average score arises from very different strengths and intended roles.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins every benchmark category recorded here, making it the clear choice for raw compute throughput. Its advantages are consistent and substantial: a 19% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 19.1% in R20 multi-core, and 19.1% in R23 multi-core. Single-threaded performance tells the same story, with the Xeon ahead by 19% in R20 single-core and 19.1% in R23 single-core. This is a processor built for sustained, heavy workloads — the kind of rendering, simulation, or server-side number crunching where every percentage point of multi-core performance translates directly to time saved.

The AMD PRO A10-8850B, by contrast, does not win a single benchmark in this comparison. Its value proposition lies elsewhere. It carries integrated Radeon R7 graphics, something the Xeon lacks entirely, and it fits into the AMD Socket FM2+ platform with dual-channel DDR3 memory. For a system that does not require discrete graphics and where the CPU is not the sole performance bottleneck, the AMD part offers a complete package in a lower-power envelope — its 95W TDP is well below the Xeon’s 140W. But if the question is purely which CPU executes Cinebench workloads faster, the answer is unambiguous: the Xeon wins all five tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8850B runs at 3.90 GHz base, with a 4.10 GHz boost clock. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 has a 2.80 GHz base clock and no boost clock listed.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 and the AMD PRO A10-8850B have 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 supports ECC memory. The AMD PRO A10-8850B does not.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the AMD PRO A10-8850B beats the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the Intel Xeon wins all five Cinebench tests (R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, R23 single-core).

Q: How large is the performance gap in the closest benchmark?

A: The smallest gap is 19% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (382 vs 321). Every other test shows a 19% or 19.1% delta in favor of the Intel chip.

Q: Do both chips use the same memory type?

A: No. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses DDR4 with a quad-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD PRO A10-8850B uses DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 34.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test sets the tone: the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 scores 382 against the AMD PRO A10-8850B’s 321, a 19% advantage. That margin is not a fluke of one test version. Cinebench R20 multi-core widens it slightly to 19.1%, with scores of 1595 and 1339. The R23 multi-core test repeats the pattern exactly — 3798 versus 3189, again 19.1%. The consistency across three generations of the same benchmark suite is striking; it suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency difference rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Single-threaded performance follows the same trajectory. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon posts 225 against the AMD’s 189, a 19% lead. In R23 single-core, the numbers are 536 and 450, again a 19.1% gap. Notably, the AMD chip has a 39% higher base clock (3.90 GHz versus 2.80 GHz) and a 4.10 GHz boost, yet it still loses every single-threaded test. The Xeon’s Haswell architecture, with its larger 10 MB shared L3 cache and 22 nm process, appears to deliver far more instructions per cycle than the Steamroller-based AMD part, despite the clock disadvantage.

The average benchmark score of 1098 for both parts is the only point of statistical equality. That figure, however, is likely pulling in workloads beyond Cinebench, where the AMD’s higher clocks and integrated graphics could offset some of its compute deficits. But within the five tests that directly compare the two, the Xeon’s dominance is total and uniform. The data does not show a single scenario where the AMD part closes the gap below 19%.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge sharply on nearly every specification except core and thread counts. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses an Intel Socket 2011-3, while the AMD PRO A10-8850B uses AMD Socket FM2+. The Xeon’s TDP is 140W; the AMD part draws 95W. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory across a quad-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth; the AMD part is limited to DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Intel side, not on the AMD side.

PCIe lane counts differ as well: the Xeon provides 40 lanes (Gen 3, CPU only), while the AMD part offers 16 lanes (Gen 3, CPU only). The most conspicuous difference is integrated graphics — the AMD PRO A10-8850B includes Radeon R7, whereas the Xeon has no integrated GPU at all. The AMD chip also has a boost clock (4.10 GHz) where the Xeon has none. Their production statuses are the same (end-of-life), and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 is built on Haswell-EP, a 22 nm process from Intel, with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The AMD PRO A10-8850B uses the Steamroller architecture (Godaveri codename) on a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 2,411 million transistors on a 245 mm² die. The Xeon has a 10 MB shared L3 cache plus 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The AMD part has 256 KB L1 and 4 MB L2, with no L3 cache listed.

These architectural choices explain the benchmark results. The Xeon’s larger L3 cache and denser 22 nm process give it a substantial IPC advantage, which is why it wins single-threaded tests despite a 1.10 GHz lower base clock. The AMD chip’s higher clocks and integrated graphics suggest it was designed for a different market segment — desktop systems where a discrete GPU is not required and power draw matters. The Xeon targets server and workstation roles, where its quad-channel DDR4 memory bandwidth and ECC support are critical. The memory bandwidth gap (59.7 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s) is particularly telling; it indicates the Xeon is meant to feed more demanding memory workloads, even if Cinebench does not fully expose that difference.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by use case. For anyone running multi-threaded, CPU-bound applications like 3D rendering, video encoding, or scientific computing, the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 is the only rational choice from this pair. It wins every Cinebench test by roughly 19%, and its quad-channel DDR4 memory and ECC support make it suitable for workstation or server duty where data integrity and memory throughput are paramount. The 140W TDP is higher, but the performance payoff is consistent and measurable.

The AMD PRO A10-8850B makes sense only in a very specific scenario: a desktop build where the integrated Radeon R7 GPU eliminates the need for a separate graphics card, and where the lower 95W TDP is a priority. Its 3.90 GHz base clock and 4.10 GHz boost clock are higher than the Xeon’s, but the benchmark data shows that clock speed alone does not translate into Cinebench wins. The AMD part’s lack of ECC, dual-channel DDR3, and smaller L2 cache (4 MB total versus 10 MB shared L3) place it in a lower performance tier for compute-heavy tasks.

Neither chip is current — both are end-of-life — and both sit at the 31st percentile of all CPUs. But within this comparison, the Xeon’s 5-0 sweep is decisive. The AMD part’s only advantages are qualitative: integrated graphics, lower power draw, and a different socket ecosystem. If the workload is rendering or server-side processing, the Xeon wins outright. If the goal is a simple desktop system with no discrete GPU, the AMD part is the only one that can do the job at all. The average scores may be identical, but the benchmark detail shows why that average is misleading.