AMD PRO A10-9700 vs Intel Xeon E5620 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data presents an unusually close contest between two processors from very different eras and market positions. The AMD PRO A10-9700, a 2017 desktop part built on Excavator architecture, wins all five recorded Cinebench comparisons against the Intel Xeon E5620, a 2010 server and workstation processor based on Westmere architecture. However, the margins are remarkably thin, ranging from 1.1% to 1.7% depending on the specific test. The database shows the AMD part holds a 100% win record in these head-to-head runs, yet the average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the AMD PRO A10-9700 posts an average score of 1045 against the Xeon E5620's 1029, a difference that places them in adjacent percentile ranks among all CPUs (29th versus 28th).

For users deciding between these two, the data suggests the AMD PRO A10-9700 is the safer choice for general multi-core rendering workloads, as it leads in every single recorded benchmark. Its higher clock speeds, newer memory standard, and integrated graphics make it more versatile for a desktop environment. The Xeon E5620, meanwhile, brings ECC memory support and triple-channel DDR3, which are server-oriented features that may matter for certain stability-focused workloads, but its lower clocks and older architecture place it behind in raw Cinebench scores. The Xeon is also listed as end-of-life, while the AMD part remains active in production status. Benchmark results indicate that for pure rendering performance, the AMD PRO A10-9700 is the better pick, but the margins are so small that either processor would deliver nearly identical user-perceived performance in most tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing processes. The AMD PRO A10-9700 is built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, integrating 3,100 million transistors on a die size of 250 mm². It uses the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, and fits into the AMD Socket AM4 platform. The Intel Xeon E5620, by contrast, uses a 32 nm process at Intel's own foundries, with 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. Its architecture is Westmere, specifically Westmere-EP, and it uses the Intel Socket 1366 platform.

Core and thread configurations differ in a way that might appear to favor Intel on paper. Both have four physical cores, but the Xeon E5620 supports eight threads via Hyper-Threading, while the AMD PRO A10-9700 runs four threads total. Despite this thread advantage for Intel, the AMD part achieves higher scores in every recorded benchmark, which indicates that its higher clock speeds compensate for the lack of simultaneous multi-threading. The AMD base clock is 3.50 GHz with a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Xeon runs at a base of 2.40 GHz and boosts to 2.67 GHz. That clock gap is substantial, roughly 46% higher on base clocks for AMD, and it appears to offset the Xeon's extra threads in Cinebench workloads.

Cache hierarchies also differ significantly. The AMD PRO A10-9700 has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache at all. The Xeon E5620 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 12 MB L3 cache. The Xeon's larger total cache footprint, especially the 12 MB shared L3, is typical of server processors designed for cache-sensitive enterprise workloads. Yet in the recorded Cinebench tests, that cache advantage does not translate into a win.

Memory support presents another clear divergence. The AMD PRO A10-9700 supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, with a measured memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. It does not support ECC memory. The Xeon E5620 supports DDR3 on a triple-channel bus; the database does not list a bandwidth figure for it, but it does support ECC memory, which is a key requirement for many server and workstation environments. The AMD part also includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, while the Xeon has none, making the AMD processor a complete platform solution for basic display output without a discrete GPU.

PCI Express support differs as well. The AMD PRO A10-9700 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon E5620 uses PCIe Gen 2. The newer PCIe standard on the AMD side offers higher per-lane bandwidth for compatible devices. The AMD part has a locked multiplier, as does the Xeon, so neither offers overclocking headroom through multiplier adjustment.

Release timing also separates these parts. The AMD PRO A10-9700 was released in July 2017, while the Xeon E5620 dates from March 2010. That seven-year gap explains the newer process node, DDR4 support, and integrated graphics on the AMD side. The Xeon's production status is listed as end-of-life, while the AMD part remains active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers five Cinebench tests, and the AMD PRO A10-9700 wins all five. The largest margin appears in the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, where AMD scores 306 against Intel's 301, a delta of 1.7%. The AMD part also leads in Cinebench R20 multi-core with 1275 versus 1255, a 1.6% advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the scores are 3037 for AMD and 2989 for Intel, again a 1.6% delta.

Single-core results follow the same pattern with slightly narrower margins. In Cinebench R20 single-core, AMD scores 179 against Intel's 177, a 1.1% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, AMD posts 428 versus 422 for Intel, a 1.4% delta. Across all five tests, the AMD PRO A10-9700 wins by margins that are consistent but modest, never exceeding 1.7%.

These results are notable because the Xeon E5620 has twice the thread count of the AMD part. The fact that AMD still wins multi-core tests, despite having half the threads, underscores the impact of its higher clock speeds and newer memory subsystem. The Xeon's 12 MB of L3 cache and triple-channel DDR3 are not enough to overcome the clock deficit in these Cinebench workloads.

For context on how each processor sits among its closest competitors, the database provides nearest-rival comparisons. The AMD PRO A10-9700's average benchmark score of 1045 ties it exactly with the Intel Pentium Gold G5620, which also scores 1045 with a 0% delta. It also sits within 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-6350HQ and the AMD PRO A10-8770, both scoring 1046, and within 0.2% of the AMD Athlon X4 950 at 1047. The Xeon E5620's average score of 1029 places it 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B and the Intel Core i7-5650U, both at 1027, and 0.2% behind the Intel Pentium G4560 at 1031. It also leads the Intel Core i3-4340 by 0.3%, which scores 1026.

The percentile rankings reinforce the closeness of these parts. The AMD PRO A10-9700 sits at the 29th percentile among all CPUs, while the Xeon E5620 sits at the 28th. That single-percentile gap is consistent with the small benchmark deltas observed across all five tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The AMD PRO A10-9700 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Intel Xeon E5620 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 2.67 GHz.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E5620 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5620 supports ECC memory. The AMD PRO A10-9700 does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The AMD PRO A10-9700 includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics. The Intel Xeon E5620 has no integrated graphics.

Q: How many threads does each processor support?

A: The AMD PRO A10-9700 supports 4 threads across 4 cores. The Intel Xeon E5620 supports 8 threads across 4 cores.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The AMD PRO A10-9700 is listed as active in production. The Intel Xeon E5620 is listed as end-of-life.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The AMD PRO A10-9700 supports DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel Xeon E5620 supports DDR3 on a triple-channel bus.

Q: Which processor wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The AMD PRO A10-9700 wins with a score of 3037 against the Xeon E5620's 2989, a 1.6% margin.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A10-9700 wins every recorded benchmark in the database, so the use-case split is not about whether AMD leads, but rather where each processor's broader feature set offers advantages beyond raw Cinebench scores.

For environments that prioritize single-threaded responsiveness, the AMD PRO A10-9700 is the clear choice. Its boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus the Xeon's 2.67 GHz gives it a substantial edge in the single-core Cinebench tests, where it leads by 1.1% in R20 and 1.4% in R23. Applications that rely heavily on one or two threads, such as older software, certain productivity tools, or light scripting workloads, will benefit from the AMD part's higher frequency.

For multi-threaded rendering workloads, the AMD part also wins, but the margin is tighter. The Xeon's 8 threads versus AMD's 4 threads narrow the gap, yet AMD still leads by 1.6% in both R20 and R23 multi-core tests. This suggests that the Xeon's thread advantage is real but insufficient to overcome the clock and memory bandwidth differences. Users running continuous multi-core renders may notice a slight edge on the AMD platform, though the difference is small enough that other system components would likely dominate perceived performance.

The Xeon E5620 has its own strengths in server and workstation contexts. Its ECC memory support is a decisive feature for data integrity in servers, financial computing, or long-running scientific workloads where a single-bit error could be costly. The triple-channel DDR3 memory bus also provides a wider path to memory, which can benefit certain memory-intensive server applications, even though the database does not list a bandwidth figure for the Xeon. The Xeon's 12 MB shared L3 cache is substantially larger than the AMD part's 2 MB L2 cache with no L3, which may help with workloads that exhibit high cache locality and repeated access to large data sets.

Platform considerations also differ. The AMD PRO A10-9700 uses Socket AM4, which places it in a modern desktop ecosystem with DDR4 support and PCIe Gen 3 connectivity. The Xeon E5620 uses Socket 1366, an older server platform with DDR3 and PCIe Gen 2. For anyone building a new system today, the AMD platform offers better compatibility with current memory and expansion cards. For those maintaining legacy server infrastructure, the Xeon remains a known quantity, though its end-of-life status means no ongoing production.

Integrated graphics is another clear differentiator. The AMD PRO A10-9700 includes Radeon R7 graphics, allowing a system to operate without a discrete GPU for basic display output, video playback, and light graphics tasks. The Xeon E5620 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a separate graphics card for any display output, which is standard for most server and workstation boards.

Power consumption, as recorded, also favors the AMD part. It has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Xeon E5620 has a TDP of 80 watts. For dense server deployments or energy-conscious desktop builds, the AMD part draws less power, though the difference is modest.

In summary, the AMD PRO A10-9700 is the better all-around processor according to every benchmark in the database. It wins all five Cinebench tests, offers integrated graphics, supports newer memory and PCIe standards, and consumes less power. The Intel Xeon E5620 remains relevant only for specific legacy server environments where ECC memory and triple-channel DDR3 are mandatory, and where the workload is not well-represented by Cinebench scores. For most users, the recorded data points directly to the AMD PRO A10-9700.