AMD PRO A12-8870 vs Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 Comparison

The AMD PRO A12-8870 and Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 are remarkably close competitors, with the AMD part winning all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons by margins that never exceed 0.5%. Both processors sit at the 31st percentile of all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by only 4 points (1107 vs 1103). The data shows that despite fundamentally different architectures, market segments, and physical specifications, these two chips deliver nearly identical rendering performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD PRO A12-8870 edges out the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 in every single comparison, but the victories are razor-thin. The largest delta comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where AMD scores 190 against Intel's 189, a 0.5% advantage. This pattern of marginal wins repeats across the entire test suite.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD PRO A12-8870 scores 324 versus 323 for the Xeon, a 0.3% lead. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a similar story: 1351 for AMD against 1346 for Intel, a 0.4% difference. The R23 multi-core results follow suit, with AMD at 3218 and Intel at 3207, again a 0.3% margin. Finally, Cinebench R23 single-core gives AMD 454 points versus 452 for Intel, a 0.4% advantage.

These results are statistically insignificant in real-world terms. A 0.3-0.5% performance delta is well within run-to-run variance for most benchmark workloads. The data indicates that neither processor offers a meaningful performance advantage over the other in Cinebench rendering tasks. The AMD part technically wins all five comparisons, but the consistency of the tiny margins suggests these are effectively equivalent performers.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this conclusion: AMD's average is 1107, while Intel's is 1103. This 4-point gap places the AMD chip at parity with the AMD Opteron 4280 (1107, 0% delta) and just ahead of the AMD Athlon X4 845 (1106, 0.1% delta). The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3, meanwhile, matches the Intel Pentium Gold G6605 (1103, 0% delta) and trails the AMD PRO A12-9800 (1104, -0.1% delta) by a negligible amount.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark, yet the performance outcome is nearly identical. The AMD PRO A12-8870 uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process node fabricated by GlobalFoundries, featuring 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 employs the Haswell architecture on Intel's 22 nm process, with 2,600 million transistors spread across a larger 356 mm² die.

Core counts differ: the AMD chip has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Xeon offers 6 cores and 6 threads. Despite having 50% more cores, the Intel part cannot translate that into a performance advantage because its base clock is dramatically lower. The AMD PRO A12-8870 runs at 3.70 GHz base with a 4.20 GHz boost clock, whereas the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 is locked at 1.60 GHz base with no boost capability at all.

Cache configurations also diverge significantly. The AMD PRO A12-8870 has 320 KB of L1 cache and 2 MB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache present. The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 specifies its cache per core: 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, plus a substantial 15 MB of shared L3 cache. This L3 advantage is typical of server-oriented designs and helps the Xeon compensate for its low clock speed.

Memory architecture differs as well. Both support DDR4, but the AMD part uses a dual-channel memory bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon uses a quad-channel configuration delivering 51.2 GB/s. The Intel processor also supports ECC memory, while the AMD PRO A12-8870 does not. PCIe connectivity is Gen 3 on both, but the Intel Xeon provides 40 lanes from the CPU, whereas the AMD chip's lane count is not specified in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the AMD PRO A12-8870 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the AMD PRO A12-8870 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 offers 51.2 GB/s over a quad-channel DDR4 bus, while the AMD PRO A12-8870 provides 38.4 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The AMD PRO A12-8870 runs at 3.70 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost, while the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 has a 1.60 GHz base clock and no boost capability.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 supports ECC memory; the AMD PRO A12-8870 does not.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The AMD PRO A12-8870 is listed as Active, while the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 is End-of-life.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes one thing clear: performance parity. The AMD PRO A12-8870 wins all five Cinebench tests, but by margins of only 0.3-0.5%. Neither processor offers a compelling performance reason to choose it over the other. The average scores of 1107 and 1103 are effectively identical.

The real differentiators are platform features and ecosystem fit. The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 targets server and workstation workloads with ECC memory support, quad-channel memory bandwidth (51.2 GB/s), and a 15 MB shared L3 cache. It also has a 6-core configuration, which may benefit highly threaded workloads that scale beyond 4 threads, even if the low 1.60 GHz clock limits overall throughput.

The AMD PRO A12-8870 is a desktop part with integrated Radeon R7 graphics, making it a complete package for systems that do not require a discrete GPU. It runs at significantly higher clock speeds (3.70 GHz base, 4.20 GHz boost), which explains how it matches the 6-core Xeon despite having fewer cores. Its 65 W TDP is lower than the Intel's 85 W, and it remains in active production.

Users needing ECC memory, server-grade reliability, or a quad-channel memory subsystem should pick the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3. Users who want integrated graphics, higher clock speeds, a newer production status, or a lower TDP should pick the AMD PRO A12-8870. For pure Cinebench rendering performance, the data shows no meaningful winner.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category:

• Cores: AMD has 4; Intel has 6
• Threads: AMD has 4; Intel has 6
• Base clock: AMD at 3.70 GHz; Intel at 1.60 GHz
• Boost clock: AMD at 4.20 GHz; Intel has none
• TDP: AMD at 65 W; Intel at 85 W
• Socket: AMD Socket AM4 vs Intel Socket 2011-3
• Process node: AMD at 28 nm; Intel at 22 nm
• Transistors: AMD at 3,100 million; Intel at 2,600 million
• Die size: AMD at 250 mm²; Intel at 356 mm²
• L1 cache: AMD at 320 KB total; Intel at 64 KB per core
• L2 cache: AMD at 2 MB total; Intel at 256 KB per core
• L3 cache: AMD has none; Intel has 15 MB shared
• Memory bus: AMD dual-channel; Intel quad-channel
• Memory bandwidth: AMD at 38.4 GB/s; Intel at 51.2 GB/s
• ECC support: AMD no; Intel yes
• Integrated graphics: AMD Radeon R7; Intel none
• Market segment: AMD Desktop; Intel Server/Workstation
• Production status: AMD Active; Intel End-of-life
• PCIe lanes: Intel provides 40 lanes from CPU; AMD's count is unspecified

Where Each One Wins

The AMD PRO A12-8870 wins in scenarios that benefit from high clock speeds and integrated graphics. Its 4.20 GHz boost clock gives it an edge in lightly threaded tasks where the Intel Xeon's 1.60 GHz ceiling is a severe limitation. The integrated Radeon R7 graphics make it suitable for basic display output without a discrete GPU. Its lower 65 W TDP and active production status also favor builds where power efficiency and ongoing availability matter. The AMD chip wins all five Cinebench tests, including both single-core and multi-core variants, by margins of 0.3-0.5%.

The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 wins in server and workstation contexts where its feature set matters more than raw clock speed. ECC memory support is critical for data integrity in professional workloads. The quad-channel memory bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth provides double the memory throughput of the AMD part, which can benefit memory-bound applications. The 15 MB shared L3 cache is a substantial advantage for workloads with large working sets. The 6-core configuration offers more parallel execution resources, even if the low clock speed prevents it from converting that into a Cinebench win. Its launch MSRP was $213, though pricing guidance is otherwise not covered here.

The data ultimately shows two processors that arrive at the same performance destination through entirely different routes: AMD uses high clocks and a modern desktop platform, while Intel relies on more cores, more cache, and a server-grade memory subsystem. Neither approach produces a meaningful performance advantage in the tested benchmarks.