AMD PRO A12-8870 vs Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 and the AMD PRO A12-8870 are both 31st-percentile performers, with nearly identical average benchmark scores of 1109 and 1107 respectively. Yet the data reveals a decisive head-to-head sweep: the Xeon wins all five shared Cinebench tests by roughly 19% each. The Xeon is the clear choice for any multi-threaded or single-threaded workload where raw compute wins matter, while the AMD chip’s appeal rests entirely on its integrated Radeon R7 graphics and lower 65W TDP — features the Xeon lacks entirely.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 is the superior processor for pure CPU performance. It beats the AMD PRO A12-8870 in every single shared benchmark, with margins ranging from 19.1% to 19.5%. The Xeon’s 6 cores and 6 threads, paired with 15 MB of shared L3 cache, deliver 386 points in Cinebench R15 multicore versus the AMD’s 324 points — a 19.1% lead. That advantage persists across newer tests: 1611 vs 1351 in R20 multicore (19.2% ahead) and 3836 vs 3218 in R23 multicore (19.2% ahead). Even in single-core tests, where the AMD’s higher 3.70 GHz base clock and 4.20 GHz boost might suggest an edge, the Xeon wins: 227 vs 190 in R20 single-core and 541 vs 454 in R23 single-core.

The AMD PRO A12-8870’s case rests on different pillars. It is an active, desktop-market part with integrated Radeon R7 graphics, a 65W TDP, and a smaller 250 mm² die. The Xeon, by contrast, is an end-of-life server/workstation chip with an 85W TDP, no integrated graphics, and a larger 356 mm² die. For a system builder who needs a CPU with on-chip display output and lower power draw, the AMD is the only one of the two that qualifies. But for any workload where the CPU’s compute is the bottleneck, the Xeon’s consistent 19% margin makes it the definitive pick.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the AMD PRO A12-8870 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How large is the cache difference between the two?

A: The Xeon has 15 MB of shared L3 cache, plus 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The AMD has no L3 cache; it offers 320 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 total.

Q: Does either chip include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the AMD PRO A12-8870 includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 with a peak bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The AMD supports dual-channel DDR4 with a peak bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 supports ECC memory. The AMD PRO A12-8870 does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon has an average benchmark score of 1109, while the AMD scores 1107 — a difference of just 0.1%, placing both in the 31st percentile of all CPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 is built on the Haswell-EP architecture, using a 22 nm process at Intel’s foundry. It packs 2,600 million transistors into a 356 mm² die. The AMD PRO A12-8870 uses the Excavator architecture (codename Carrizo), fabricated on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 3,100 million transistors on a smaller 250 mm² die. Despite having more transistors, the AMD chip uses a larger process node, which explains its higher base clock of 3.70 GHz versus the Xeon’s 1.90 GHz — the AMD trades transistor density for clock speed.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The Xeon allocates 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, then pools 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD has no L3 cache at all, instead offering 320 KB of L1 and a modest 2 MB of L2. This structural difference matters: the Xeon’s large shared L3 cache can hold far more working data, reducing trips to memory. The AMD’s reliance on a small L2 forces more frequent main-memory access, which its dual-channel bus (38.4 GB/s) handles less capably than the Xeon’s quad-channel bus (51.2 GB/s).

Memory support is another divergence. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a hallmark of server/workstation parts, while the AMD does not. The Xeon also provides PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, whereas the AMD offers PCIe Gen 3 without a stated lane count. The AMD compensates with integrated Radeon R7 graphics and a 65W TDP, while the Xeon’s 85W TDP and lack of iGPU reflect its server-oriented role.

Specification Differences

The most glaring difference is core count: the Xeon has 6 cores and 6 threads, the AMD has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: the Xeon runs at 1.90 GHz with no boost clock, while the AMD runs at 3.70 GHz base and boosts to 4.20 GHz. The Xeon has a higher TDP at 85W versus the AMD’s 65W. Sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, the AMD uses AMD Socket AM4.

Cache and memory specs diverge as described above: the Xeon’s 15 MB shared L3 versus the AMD’s none, and quad-channel versus dual-channel memory buses. Process node differs (22 nm vs 28 nm), as do transistor counts (2,600 million vs 3,100 million) and die sizes (356 mm² vs 250 mm²). The Xeon supports ECC memory; the AMD does not. The AMD has integrated Radeon R7 graphics; the Xeon has none. Market segments differ: the Xeon targets server/workstation, the AMD targets desktop. Production status also differs: the Xeon is end-of-life, while the AMD is active. The Xeon launched with a $306 MSRP (stated once here); the AMD has no launch MSRP listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon wins all five head-to-head tests, with margins that are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 386 against the AMD’s 324, a 19.1% advantage. The same pattern holds in R20 multicore: 1611 vs 1351, a 19.2% lead. R23 multicore shows 3836 vs 3218, again 19.2% ahead. These consistent margins indicate the Xeon’s advantage scales with thread count — its 6 cores outmuscle the AMD’s 4 cores despite the AMD’s much higher clock speed.

Single-core results are more surprising. The AMD’s 3.70 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost clocks should favor it in single-threaded work, yet the Xeon still wins. In R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 227 versus the AMD’s 190, a 19.5% margin. In R23 single-core, the Xeon posts 541 versus 454, a 19.2% lead. The Xeon’s per-core performance, despite a 1.90 GHz base clock, is evidently far superior on an instructions-per-clock basis. The Excavator architecture’s higher clocks cannot compensate for the Haswell-EP’s efficiency.

The pairing of these two CPUs is unusual because their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: the Xeon averages 1109, the AMD averages 1107, a 0.1% difference. This places them as direct rivals in the 31st percentile, with overlapping nearestRivals lists. The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-4570T (1108, 0.1% higher) and the Intel Core i7-5557U (1110, 0.1% higher). The AMD’s nearest rivals include the AMD Opteron 4280 (1107, 0% difference) and the AMD Athlon X4 845 (1106, 0.1% higher). This statistical tie makes the head-to-head sweep all the more striking — the aggregate scores hide the fact that in every specific Cinebench test, the Xeon is decisively ahead.

The data tells a clear story: the Xeon is a massively more efficient compute engine, winning by ~19% in every test despite a 1.80 GHz lower base clock. The AMD’s only advantages are its integrated graphics, lower TDP, and active production status. For anyone prioritizing raw CPU performance, the Xeon is the unambiguous winner. For anyone needing a complete APU solution with on-chip graphics, the AMD is the only option that fits.