AMD PRO A12-8870E vs Intel Xeon X5550 Comparison

The Intel Xeon X5550 and AMD PRO A12-8870E are two legacy-oriented processors from vastly different eras and market positions. The Xeon is a 2009-era server part built on Intel's 45 nm Nehalem architecture, while the AMD PRO A12-8870E is a 28 nm Excavator-based desktop APU designed for low-power systems. Despite their differences in age, process node, and platform, benchmark results show them landing within a hair of each other across every tested workload, with the Xeon claiming narrow victories in all five Cinebench tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon X5550 leads with an average benchmark score of 888, compared to the AMD PRO A12-8870E's 880. This places the Xeon in the 24th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD chip sits in the 23rd percentile.

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

A: The Xeon wins every multi-core test by a margin between 0.8% and 0.9%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2580 versus 2558 for the AMD part, a delta of 0.9%. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon posts 1083 against 1074, a 0.8% edge.

Q: Does the AMD processor win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Intel Xeon X5550 winning all five tests, with the AMD PRO A12-8870E recording zero wins. The AMD chip's closest result is a 0.7% deficit in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 151 versus the Xeon's 152.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: Both CPUs have four physical cores. The Intel Xeon X5550 supports eight threads via Hyper-Threading, while the AMD PRO A12-8870E has four threads total, meaning no simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon X5550 supports ECC memory, consistent with its server/workstation market segment. The AMD PRO A12-8870E does not list ECC memory support.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Xeon X5550's average score of 888 ties the Intel Core i3-6100 exactly, with a 0% delta. It edges the Pentium G4560T (887, 0.1% delta) and AMD PRO A8-8650B (887, 0.2% delta). The AMD PRO A12-8870E's 880 average ties the Ryzen 3 2300U exactly, and sits 0.1% behind the Core i3-1000NG4 and Phenom II X6 1035T.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by several architectural generations. The Intel Xeon X5550 uses the Nehalem architecture under the Gainestown codename, built on a 45 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It integrates 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The AMD PRO A12-8870E employs the Excavator architecture with the Carrizo codename, fabricated on a 28 nm process by GlobalFoundries, packing 3,100 million transistors onto a 250 mm² die.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The Xeon supports DDR3 over a triple-channel memory bus, a configuration typical of early Nehalem-era server platforms. The AMD part supports DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, with a listed memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Xeon's cache hierarchy uses 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip offers 320 KB of L1, 2 MB of L2, and no L3 cache at all.

PCIe support also differs: the Xeon provides Gen 2, while the AMD processor offers Gen 3. The AMD part integrates a Radeon R7 graphics core, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Xeon is unlocked and carries the part number SLBF5, while the AMD chip is multiplier-locked and uses part number AD887BAHM44AB. The Xeon targets the server/workstation segment and is end-of-life, while the AMD PRO A12-8870E is an active desktop part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a picture of extraordinary parity, with the Intel Xeon X5550 winning every single test but by margins under 1%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 259 against 257 for the AMD PRO A12-8870E, a 0.8% advantage. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 1083 for Intel versus 1074 for AMD, again a 0.8% gap.

Single-core results follow the same trend. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon posts 152 versus 151, a 0.7% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core sees the Xeon at 364 and the AMD at 361, a 0.8% edge. The largest relative delta in the entire comparison appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon's 2580 beats the AMD's 2558 by 0.9%.

What makes these results notable is the sheer consistency of the margin. The Xeon wins each test by roughly the same small percentage, regardless of whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded. This suggests the performance difference stems from a uniform per-clock efficiency advantage rather than any workload-specific strength. The AMD chip's higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz versus the Xeon's 3.07 GHz is not enough to overcome the older Intel architecture's IPC advantage, even though the Xeon's base clock is lower at 2.67 GHz versus 2.90 GHz.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The Intel Xeon X5550 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD PRO A12-8870E has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.67 GHz for Intel and 2.90 GHz for AMD; boost clocks are 3.07 GHz and 3.70 GHz, respectively. Thermal design power differs dramatically: the Xeon is rated at 95 watts, while the AMD part draws only 35 watts.

Socket compatibility is entirely separate: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, and the AMD chip uses AMD Socket AM4. The process nodes are 45 nm for Intel versus 28 nm for AMD. Transistor counts are 731 million for the Xeon and 3,100 million for the AMD part, with die sizes of 263 mm² and 250 mm², respectively. Cache configurations are distinct: the Xeon offers 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3; the AMD chip has 320 KB L1 and 2 MB L2, with no L3.

Memory support sets them apart as well: the Xeon uses DDR3 with triple-channel access, while the AMD processor uses DDR4 with dual-channel access and lists a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the AMD part. PCIe generations are Gen 2 for Intel and Gen 3 for AMD. The AMD chip includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics; the Xeon has none. The Xeon is a server/workstation part and end-of-life, while the AMD chip is an active desktop processor. The Xeon's release date is March 2009, while the AMD part's release date is not listed in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon X5550 wins in every benchmark category tested, making it the straightforward choice for raw compute performance. Its five wins across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core variants, indicate that it holds a consistent edge in CPU-bound rendering workloads. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which makes it suitable for server or workstation environments where data integrity is a priority. Its triple-channel DDR3 memory architecture and 8 MB of shared L3 cache provide a more robust memory subsystem for multi-threaded server-style tasks, even if the absolute benchmark deltas are small.

The AMD PRO A12-8870E wins in platform efficiency and integration. Its 35-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the Xeon's 95-watt rating, making it far better suited for compact, low-power desktop builds. The integrated Radeon R7 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. The AMD chip's support for DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3 provides a more modern platform foundation, and its higher base and boost clocks (2.90 GHz and 3.70 GHz) suggest better responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks, even though the benchmark data does not reflect a win in any tested workload.

For users comparing these two, the decision hinges on priorities rather than performance. The Xeon offers a slight but consistent compute advantage and ECC support, but it demands a legacy Socket 1366 platform with higher power consumption and no integrated graphics. The AMD part delivers comparable performance within 1% across the board, uses 60 watts less power, includes graphics, and fits a modern AM4 platform with DDR4 support. The benchmark data shows no scenario where the AMD chip wins outright, but its combination of low power, integrated graphics, and modern memory support may make it the more practical choice for desktop systems where the Xeon's server-oriented features are unnecessary.