AMD PRO A12-8870 vs Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD PRO A12-8870 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 is set at 2.80 GHz. The AMD part also offers a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, whereas the Xeon has no listed boost clock.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 scores 3798 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD PRO A12-8870 scores 3218. This gives the Xeon a 15.3% advantage in that test.

Q: Do both processors support DDR4 memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR4. However, the AMD PRO A12-8870 uses a dual-channel memory bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses a quad-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD PRO A12-8870 has integrated graphics, specifically the Radeon R7. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 does not list any integrated graphics unit.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 supports ECC memory. The AMD PRO A12-8870 does not list ECC memory support.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the AMD PRO A12-8870 wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data across five Cinebench tests (R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core), the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins all five. The AMD part records zero wins.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is substantial. The AMD PRO A12-8870 is built on the Excavator architecture, codenamed Carrizo, using a 28 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. It integrates 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, codenamed Haswell-EP, on Intel's 22 nm process, with 2,600 million transistors on a larger 356 mm² die. The smaller process node on the Intel side coexists with a physically larger die and a lower transistor count, which points to different design priorities.

Cache layouts also diverge sharply. The AMD part carries 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache listed. The Intel part lists L1 at 64 KB per core, L2 at 256 KB per core, and a shared 10 MB L3 cache. For a four-core processor, that translates to 256 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 total on the Intel side, but the shared L3 pool gives it a significant caching advantage for data shared across cores. The AMD design has no third-level cache to draw upon.

Memory architecture differs as well. Both support DDR4, but the AMD PRO A12-8870 uses a dual-channel memory bus delivering 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses a quad-channel memory bus delivering 59.7 GB/s. That is a substantial bandwidth advantage for the Xeon, which matters in memory-heavy workloads. The AMD part also lacks ECC memory support, while the Xeon includes it, positioning the Intel chip for workstation or server environments.

PCI Express capabilities are listed as Gen 3 for both, but the Xeon adds 40 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD part provides no lane count in the data. The AMD processor includes a Radeon R7 integrated graphics unit, whereas the Xeon has none. The AMD part uses Socket AM4, while the Intel chip uses Socket 2011-3. Market segments also differ: the AMD PRO A12-8870 is classified as Desktop, while the Xeon E5-1603 v3 is classified as Server/Workstation. Production status separates them further, with the AMD part listed as Active and the Xeon listed as End-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers five Cinebench tests, and the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins every single one. The margins are consistent, hovering around 15% across both single-core and multi-core workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 382 against the AMD's 324, a 15.2% difference. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon posts 1595 while the AMD scores 1351, a 15.3% gap. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the same pattern: 3798 for the Xeon versus 3218 for the AMD, again a 15.3% difference. The consistency of that margin across three generations of Cinebench multi-core tests is notable; it suggests a stable performance differential that does not shrink or grow with the workload version.

Single-core results mirror the multi-core trend. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 225 against the AMD's 190, a 15.6% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 536 against the AMD's 454, a 15.3% edge. The single-core margins are nearly identical to the multi-core margins, which indicates the Intel advantage is not tied to core scaling or thread scheduling but rather to per-core efficiency. The AMD part has a higher base clock (3.70 GHz versus 2.80 GHz) and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, yet it still trails in single-core performance. That points to a significant IPC (instructions per clock) gap in favor of the Haswell architecture.

The average benchmark scores in the database further contextualize these results. The AMD PRO A12-8870 has an average benchmark score of 1107, while the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 sits at 1098. Despite losing every head-to-head Cinebench test, the AMD part actually has a marginally higher average score in the overall database, which reflects differences in the benchmark mix beyond the Cinebench suite. Both processors sit at the 31st percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same overall performance tier even though the Xeon dominates the Cinebench tests.

Nearest rival data reinforces this picture. The AMD PRO A12-8870 sits alongside the AMD Opteron 4280 (both at 1107, 0% delta), the AMD Athlon X4 845 and Opteron 3280 (both at 1106, 0.1% delta), and the Intel Core i5-4570T (1108, -0.1% delta). The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 sits alongside the AMD PRO A10-8850B (1098, 0% delta), the Intel Pentium 6805 (1099, -0.1% delta), the Intel Core i5-3450S (1099, -0.1% delta), and the Intel Core i7-2710QE (1096, 0.1% delta). The rival pools are comparable in average score, but the Cinebench head-to-head data shows a clear and repeated Intel victory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The AMD PRO A12-8870 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and no boost clock listed. The AMD part has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Xeon has a TDP of 140 watts, more than double.

The AMD chip uses AMD Socket AM4 and is built on the Excavator architecture (Carrizo) at 28 nm from GlobalFoundries. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3 and is built on Haswell (Haswell-EP) at 22 nm from Intel. Transistor counts differ: 3,100 million for the AMD versus 2,600 million for the Intel. Die sizes also differ: 250 mm² for the AMD versus 356 mm² for the Intel.

Cache configurations are completely different. The AMD part has 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 with no L3 cache. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the AMD uses dual-channel with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel uses quad-channel with 59.7 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the Intel part.

Integrated graphics are present only on the AMD PRO A12-8870, which carries a Radeon R7 unit. PCIe is Gen 3 for both, but the Intel part lists 40 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD part lists no lane count. The AMD part is classified as Desktop market segment and is Active in production. The Intel part is classified as Server/Workstation and is End-of-life. The AMD part number is AD887BAUM44AB, while the Intel part number is SR20K. Neither part has a launch MSRP listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it leads by 15.2%. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it leads by 15.3%. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it leads by 15.6%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it leads by 15.3%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it leads by 15.3%. If the workload is Cinebench-based rendering or any task that follows a similar CPU-bound pattern, the Xeon is the clear choice.

The Intel part also wins on memory bandwidth. Its quad-channel DDR4 configuration delivers 59.7 GB/s, compared to 38.4 GB/s for the dual-channel AMD part. That is a 55% bandwidth advantage, which can matter for workloads that stream large datasets through memory. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which is valuable for long-running compute jobs where memory errors are a concern. Its 10 MB of shared L3 cache provides a large pool for frequently accessed data, while the AMD part has no L3 at all.

The AMD PRO A12-8870 wins in areas outside raw compute benchmarks. It has integrated Radeon R7 graphics, which means a system built around it does not require a separate GPU for basic display output. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory. The AMD part also has a far lower TDP at 65 watts versus 140 watts, which reduces cooling requirements and overall system power draw. Its higher base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz do not translate to benchmark wins in the recorded data, but they remain specification differences that favor the AMD part on paper.

The AMD part is also the only one listed as Active in production, while the Intel Xeon is End-of-life. For new system builds, the AMD part has a current production status, whereas the Xeon would be sourced from existing inventory or the used market.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for compute-heavy workloads: the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 is the stronger processor. It wins all five Cinebench head-to-head tests with margins between 15.2% and 15.6%. The consistency of that margin across multi-core and single-core tests indicates a broad architectural advantage in the Haswell design, particularly in per-core efficiency.

The AMD PRO A12-8870 is the better choice for a different set of priorities. It includes integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks, so a system built around it can operate without a discrete GPU. Its 65 watt TDP is less than half of the Xeon's 140 watt TDP, making it the more power-efficient option. Its production status is Active, while the Xeon is End-of-life.

For a workstation or server application that relies on CPU rendering, ECC memory, and high memory bandwidth, the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 is the appropriate pick. The quad-channel memory bus, 10 MB L3 cache, and ECC support align with the Server/Workstation market segment classification. The 15.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is a meaningful performance gap for rendering workloads.

For a desktop system where integrated graphics are needed, power consumption matters, and the workload is not dominated by CPU rendering, the AMD PRO A12-8870 is the sensible option. Its lower TDP and Radeon R7 graphics make it a self-contained desktop part. The average benchmark scores in the database are nearly identical (1107 for AMD versus 1098 for Intel), so outside the Cinebench suite, the two processors occupy the same overall performance tier. The choice comes down to platform features rather than raw compute dominance.