CPU Comparison

The AMD PRO A10-9700E and Intel Xeon W3540 occupy nearly the same performance tier despite being separated by seven years of architecture evolution. The data shows a consistent, narrow advantage for the Intel part across every benchmark recorded, with the Xeon W3540 winning all five head-to-head comparisons. The largest margin is a 3.2% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core, while the other four tests show deltas between 2.9% and 3.0%. This is a remarkably tight contest: the AMD part averages 919 points across its benchmark suite versus 913 for the Intel, placing the two within 0.7% of each other in aggregate scoring. The Xeon’s wins are real but marginal, never exceeding 78 points in any multi-core test, which raises the question of whether architectural age or thread count matters more at this performance level.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon W3540 takes a clean sweep, but every victory is narrow. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 267 against the PRO A10-9700E’s 259, a 3% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap tightens slightly to 2.9% (1113 vs 1081). The pattern holds in Cinebench R23 multi-core: 2652 versus 2574, again a 2.9% difference. Single-core results follow the same trajectory, with the Xeon leading by 3.2% in Cinebench R20 (157 vs 152) and 2.9% in Cinebench R23 (374 vs 363). The AMD chip never comes within 1% of the Intel part in any test, yet the margins are small enough that real-world differences would likely be imperceptible outside synthetic workloads.

What makes these results counterintuitive is the hardware behind them. The Xeon W3540 is a 45nm Nehalem part from 2009 with a 2.93GHz base clock and 3.20GHz boost, while the AMD PRO A10-9700E is a 28nm Excavator part from 2016 with a 3.00GHz base and 3.50GHz boost. The AMD chip has a 70MHz base-clock advantage and a 300MHz boost-clock advantage, yet it still loses every benchmark. The Intel part compensates with eight threads versus four, which explains its multi-core edge, but the single-core results are more puzzling. A newer process node and higher clock speed should translate to an IPC advantage for AMD, but the data suggests the Excavator architecture’s single-thread performance is simply weaker than Nehalem’s, even at a 0.57GHz clock deficit. The percentile rankings reinforce this: the PRO A10-9700E sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon W3540 is at the 24th, essentially tied.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins the most benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon W3540 wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, with deltas ranging from 2.9% to 3.2% over the AMD PRO A10-9700E.

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

A: The Xeon leads by 3% in Cinebench R15 (267 vs 259) and by 2.9% in both Cinebench R20 (1113 vs 1081) and Cinebench R23 (2652 vs 2574).

Q: Does the AMD chip’s higher clock speed help in single-core tests?

A: No. Despite a 3.50GHz boost clock versus the Xeon’s 3.20GHz, the AMD part scores lower in both single-core tests: 152 vs 157 in Cinebench R20 and 363 vs 374 in Cinebench R23.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD PRO A10-9700E averages 919 points, while the Intel Xeon W3540 averages 913 points, a 0.7% difference in the AMD’s favor despite losing every head-to-head test.

Q: What are their nearest rivals according to the data?

A: The AMD part’s closest rival is the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1305G at 919 points (0% delta), while the Intel part’s closest rival is the Intel Pentium Gold G6405T at 915 points (-0.2% delta).

Q: Is there a significant difference in their percentile rankings?

A: No. The AMD PRO A10-9700E ranks at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, and the Intel Xeon W3540 ranks at the 24th percentile, placing both in the same performance class.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras. The AMD PRO A10-9700E uses the Excavator architecture on a 28nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die. The Intel Xeon W3540 uses the Nehalem architecture on a 45nm process from Intel, with only 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: AMD fits over four times as many transistors into a slightly smaller area, yet the performance outcome is nearly identical. This suggests that Excavator’s complexity, which includes integrated graphics and a memory controller, does not translate into compute efficiency.

Cache configurations also diverge sharply. The AMD part has 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. The Intel part provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus a shared 8 MB L3 cache. That 8 MB of L3 is likely a major factor in the Xeon’s single-core wins, as it allows more data to reside closer to the execution units. The AMD chip’s lack of L3 forces reliance on system memory, which may explain its slight deficit despite a clock-speed advantage. Memory support differs as well: AMD uses DDR4 in dual-channel configuration with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while Intel uses DDR3 in triple-channel configuration with no listed bandwidth figure. The AMD’s newer memory standard does not overcome the cache disadvantage.

The process node gap is equally telling. A 28nm process versus a 45nm process should give AMD a power and thermal advantage, and indeed the TDP figures confirm this: 35W for AMD versus 130W for Intel. Yet the Xeon’s higher power envelope buys only a 3% performance edge, suggesting the Excavator architecture is significantly less power-efficient per unit of work. The AMD part also integrates a Radeon R7 GPU, which the Xeon lacks entirely, making it a more complete package for desktop use. The PRO A10-9700E supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, while the Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2, another generational advantage that does not show up in compute benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow winner: the Intel Xeon W3540 outperforms the AMD PRO A10-9700E in every recorded benchmark, with margins between 2.9% and 3.2%. However, the AMD part’s higher average benchmark score (919 vs 913) and identical percentile tier (25th vs 24th) complicate the story. If raw compute is the only criterion, the Xeon W3540 is the better choice, it wins all five head-to-head tests and offers eight threads versus four, which future multi-threaded workloads could exploit further. But the AMD chip delivers this near-parity while consuming 35W versus 130W, a massive efficiency gap that the benchmark scores do not capture. The AMD part also brings integrated graphics, DDR4 support, and PCIe Gen 3, making it a more modern platform option. For users prioritizing raw multi-core throughput in a workstation, the Xeon’s consistent 3% edge is the deciding factor. For those who need a lower-power, feature-rich desktop chip, the AMD part’s performance deficit is small enough to overlook.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD PRO A10-9700E | Intel Xeon W3540 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.93 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 35W | 130W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | Intel Socket 1366 |

| Architecture | Excavator | Nehalem |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 45 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 731 million |

| Die Size | 250 mm² | 263 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | None | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Triple-channel |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 2 |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon R7 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2016-10-02 | 2009-03-29 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W3540 wins in every single-threaded and multi-threaded benchmark recorded, making it the clear choice for pure compute performance. Its 8 MB of shared L3 cache and eight threads give it an edge in workloads that benefit from larger working sets and higher thread parallelism, such as rendering, compilation, or server-side processing. The Xeon’s ECC memory support and triple-channel DDR3 also make it more suitable for workstation or server environments where data integrity and memory bandwidth are critical, even if the bandwidth figure is unlisted.

The AMD PRO A10-9700E wins on platform modernity and efficiency. Its 35W TDP is 73% lower than the Xeon’s 130W, making it dramatically cheaper to cool and power. The integrated Radeon R7 GPU eliminates the need for a discrete graphics card in basic desktop tasks, while DDR4 support and PCIe Gen 3 provide a more future-proof foundation. The AMD chip’s active production status and 2016 release date also mean it is still available, whereas the Xeon is end-of-life. In scenarios where power draw, system cost, or integrated graphics matter more than a 3% benchmark delta, the AMD part is the pragmatic pick. For pure performance, the Xeon’s five wins speak for themselves.