AMD PRO A10-8850B vs Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a clear verdict: the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 wins all five recorded head-to-head comparisons against the AMD PRO A10-8850B, with a consistent performance margin of roughly 20% across every test. The Intel part takes the Cinebench R15 multicore test with 386 points versus 321 for the AMD, a 20.2% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Intel scores 1611 against 1339, a 20.3% lead. The single-core tests tell the same story: the Xeon posts 227 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 189, a 20.1% delta, and 541 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 450, a 20.2% gap. The R23 multicore result, 3836 versus 3189, closes the sweep at 20.3%.

These deltas are remarkably uniform, which suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent. The Intel CPU does not merely edge ahead in one niche; it maintains a nearly identical margin across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The Xeon’s win count stands at 5, with zero wins for the AMD part. This is not a close contest.

Looking at broader database averages, the two processors sit at essentially the same overall level. The Xeon E5-2609 v3 holds an average benchmark score of 1109, placing it in the 31st percentile of all CPUs. The AMD PRO A10-8850B averages 1098, also in the 31st percentile. The nearest rival list for the Intel part includes the Intel Core i5-4570T at 1108 (0.1% behind) and the AMD PRO A12-8870 at 1107 (0.1% behind). For the AMD part, the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 matches at 1098 with a 0% delta, and the Intel Core i5-3450S sits at 1099 (0.1% behind). In aggregate, these two chips are peers, yet the head-to-head Cinebench results reveal a consistent edge for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 is built on the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP codename, using a 22 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It packs 2,600 million transistors onto a 356 mm² die. The AMD PRO A10-8850B uses the Steamroller architecture with the Godaveri codename, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 28 nm process. Its transistor count is 2,411 million on a smaller 245 mm² die. The Intel part is the newer design in terms of process geometry, which helps explain its efficiency characteristics.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Xeon provides 6 physical cores and 6 threads, meaning no hyper-threading is enabled. The AMD part offers 4 cores and 4 threads. Despite having 50% more cores, the Xeon still manages to beat the AMD chip in single-core tests, which points to a substantial per-core performance advantage for the Haswell design. The AMD’s higher base clock of 3.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.10 GHz cannot overcome the architectural deficit; the Xeon runs at a modest 1.90 GHz base with no boost clock listed.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The Intel chip allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus a shared 15 MB L3 cache. The AMD part has 256 KB of total L1 cache and 4 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. The absence of L3 on the AMD side is a notable handicap in workloads that benefit from large shared pools of fast memory. The Xeon’s 15 MB shared L3 is a server-grade feature that the desktop-oriented AMD simply does not offer.

Memory support diverges as well. The Xeon uses DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus, delivering a theoretical memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The AMD PRO A10-8850B uses DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a 17.1 GB/s difference in favor of Intel, which matters for memory-intensive server workloads. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the AMD part does not. PCIe connectivity favors Intel as well: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), versus 16 lanes on the AMD side.

A major differentiator is the integrated graphics. The AMD PRO A10-8850B includes a Radeon R7 GPU, while the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has no integrated graphics listed. For a desktop system that needs a display output without a discrete GPU, the AMD part has a clear functional advantage. The Xeon is a server/workstation part that expects a separate graphics solution.

The Intel chip targets the Server/Workstation market segment, while the AMD is positioned as a Desktop part. Both are end-of-life products. The Xeon launched on 2014-09-07, while the AMD arrived later on 2015-09-28. The Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $306; the AMD has no recorded launch price.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 wins every benchmark where both were tested, so the practical question is not which workloads favor Intel, but where the AMD part remains viable. The data shows that the Xeon is the superior compute engine across all recorded Cinebench iterations, including both single-core and multi-core variants. For any CPU-bound task such as rendering, video encoding, or scientific computation, the Intel part holds a 20% advantage. The larger L3 cache and quad-channel DDR4 bandwidth reinforce this lead in data-heavy workloads.

The AMD PRO A10-8850B, despite losing all benchmarks, wins in scenarios that the Xeon cannot even enter. Its integrated Radeon R7 graphics provide a display output and basic GPU acceleration without requiring an add-in card. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, so any system built around it must include a discrete GPU. For a basic office PC, a media center, or a light desktop machine, the AMD part offers a complete package on a single chip. The AMD also uses DDR3 memory, which may be more readily available in legacy systems, and its 4.10 GHz boost clock suggests strong responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks, even though the recorded single-core scores do not reflect a win.

The socket situation also defines use cases. The Xeon requires an Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, which is a server/workstation class motherboard with correspondingly robust power delivery and memory support. The AMD uses Socket FM2+, a desktop platform that supports a broader range of consumer motherboards. Users with an existing FM2+ board could drop in the PRO A10-8850B as an upgrade, while the Xeon demands a full platform investment.

For multi-threaded server workloads, the Xeon’s 6-core count, 15 MB L3, and ECC support make it the clear choice. For a compact desktop or home theater PC where GPU output is needed and power consumption is a concern, the AMD part with its integrated Radeon R7 is the only one of the two that can function without extra hardware.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several areas where the two processors differ. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the AMD PRO A10-8850B has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks differ: the Intel runs at 1.90 GHz with no boost clock listed, while the AMD runs at 3.90 GHz base and boosts to 4.10 GHz. Thermal design power (TDP) favors Intel at 85 watts versus 95 watts for AMD.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 2011-3 for the Xeon, AMD Socket FM2+ for the PRO A10. The process nodes differ (22 nm for Intel, 28 nm for AMD), as do the foundries (Intel versus GlobalFoundries). Transistor counts are close at 2,600 million for Intel and 2,411 million for AMD, but die sizes diverge significantly: 356 mm² for the Xeon, 245 mm² for the AMD.

Cache configurations differ in every level. The Intel part has 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, plus 15 MB shared L3. The AMD part lists 256 KB total L1 and 4 MB L2, with no L3. Memory support is split: DDR4 quad-channel with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth on Intel, DDR3 dual-channel with 34.1 GB/s on AMD. ECC memory is supported only on the Intel part. PCIe lanes are 40 on Intel versus 16 on AMD, both Gen 3. Integrated graphics exist only on the AMD part (Radeon R7). The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier set to false, and so does the AMD; neither allows overclocking via multiplier adjustment.

Market segments differ: the Xeon is a Server/Workstation product, the AMD is a Desktop product. Both are end-of-life. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $306, while the AMD has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15, it scores 386 versus 321 (20.2% ahead). In Cinebench R20, it scores 1611 versus 1339 (20.3% ahead). In Cinebench R23, it scores 3836 versus 3189 (20.3% ahead).

Q: Does the AMD PRO A10-8850B win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head record shows 5 wins for the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 and 0 wins for the AMD part across all recorded tests.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 supports ECC memory. The AMD PRO A10-8850B does not list ECC support.

Q: Does either processor have integrated graphics?

A: The AMD PRO A10-8850B includes a Radeon R7 integrated GPU. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has no integrated graphics listed, so a discrete GPU is required for display output.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 supports DDR4 with a quad-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD PRO A10-8850B uses DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s. This is a 17.1 GB/s difference in favor of Intel.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1109, placing it in the 31st percentile. The AMD PRO A10-8850B has an average score of 1098, also in the 31st percentile. The difference is 11 points, which is negligible in aggregate, despite the clear 20% edge in head-to-head tests.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 is the superior processor for raw computational performance. It wins every recorded benchmark with a consistent 20% margin, offers more cores (6 versus 4), a larger cache (15 MB L3 versus none), and far higher memory bandwidth (51.2 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s). It also supports ECC memory, which is essential for server and workstation reliability. Anyone building a system for CPU-intensive work, such as rendering, compilation, or heavy multitasking, should choose the Intel part despite its lower clock speed.

The AMD PRO A10-8850B, however, retains one decisive advantage: its integrated Radeon R7 graphics. For a desktop system that needs display output, video playback, or light GPU acceleration without a discrete card, the AMD part is the only viable option between the two. Its 4.10 GHz boost clock and DDR3 support also make it more compatible with existing consumer platforms and less demanding on power delivery, with a TDP of 95 watts versus 85 watts for Intel.

The choice hinges on the use case. If the system will run headless or with a discrete GPU for serious compute tasks, the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 is the clear winner, backed by a 5 to 0 head-to-head record. If the system needs an all-in-one desktop chip with graphics output, the AMD PRO A10-8850B is the functional pick, even though it loses every CPU benchmark. The database shows that these processors occupy the same overall performance percentile, but the Xeon’s 20% edge in every measured test makes it the benchmark champion.