AMD PRO A12-9800 vs Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 Comparison

The AMD PRO A12-9800 and the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 are two processors that, on paper, could not be more different—one is a 65W desktop APU with integrated graphics, the other an 85W server/workstation chip with ECC memory support. Yet the benchmark data places them in a dead heat. Both sit at the 31st percentile of all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 1104 and 1103 respectively. The AMD edges out the Intel by a razor-thin 0.1% in that average, a margin that is statistically meaningless in real-world use. This is a comparison defined not by performance differences, but by platform and feature trade-offs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results across the Cinebench suite show an almost eerie level of parity. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both processors score exactly 323 points, a perfect tie. The AMD is listed as the nominal winner with a delta of 0%, but a 0% delta means there is no actual performance gap to measure.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. In the multi-core test, the AMD PRO A12-9800 scores 1347 against the Xeon's 1346, a 0.1% advantage that equates to a single point. In the single-core test, the AMD scores 190 versus 189, a 0.5% lead. Again, these are margins that would be lost in run-to-run variance.

The Cinebench R23 results continue the trend. In multi-core, the AMD scores 3208 and the Intel scores 3207, another 0.1% gap. In single-core, the AMD's 453 beats the Intel's 452 by 0.2%. Across all five benchmark runs, the AMD wins every single comparison, but the largest margin is just 0.5%. The Xeon E5-2603 v3 never wins a single head-to-head test, yet its losses are so small that the overall average score difference is only 1 point out of roughly 1100.

What does this mean practically? The data indicates that these two CPUs deliver functionally identical performance in rendering workloads. The Xeon's six physical cores do not translate into any measurable advantage over the AMD's four cores in these tests. Conversely, the AMD's higher clock speed—3.80 GHz base versus 1.60 GHz base—does not produce a meaningful single-core advantage either. The 0.5% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core is the best the AMD can muster, and it is negligible.

Where Each One Wins

Given the benchmark parity, the "wins" here are not about raw scores but about platform characteristics. The AMD PRO A12-9800 wins on power efficiency, with a 65W TDP compared to the Xeon's 85W. It also brings integrated Radeon R7 graphics, meaning a system built around it does not require a discrete GPU for basic display output. The AMD uses the AM4 socket, which is a mainstream desktop platform with dual-channel DDR4 memory support.

The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 wins on platform scalability and server features. It supports quad-channel DDR4 memory, which gives it a higher theoretical memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s versus the AMD's 38.4 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for data integrity in server or workstation environments. The Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, compared to just 8 on the AMD. The Xeon is a six-core part, giving it two additional physical cores, even if the benchmark data shows no performance benefit from them in Cinebench.

The Xeon's market segment is listed as Server/Workstation, while the AMD is a Desktop part. If your workload benefits from ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, or extensive PCIe lane connectivity, the Xeon is the only choice. If you need a low-power, self-contained desktop system with graphics output, the AMD is the practical pick.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD PRO A12-9800 has an average benchmark score of 1104, while the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 scores 1103. The AMD leads by 0.1%.

Q: Are these CPUs comparable in multi-core rendering performance?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both score exactly 323. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the AMD scores 1347 and the Intel scores 1346. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD scores 3208 and the Intel scores 3207.

Q: Does the Xeon's six-core design beat the AMD's four cores?

A: No. Despite having 6 cores versus 4, the Xeon does not win any head-to-head benchmark. The AMD wins all five Cinebench tests, though the largest margin is 0.5% in Cinebench R20 single-core.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 supports ECC memory. The AMD PRO A12-9800 does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

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

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD PRO A12-9800 includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in their core configurations and clocks. The AMD PRO A12-9800 has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 1.60 GHz and no boost clock listed.

Power and platform requirements diverge sharply. The AMD has a 65W TDP and uses the AMD Socket AM4. The Intel has an 85W TDP and uses the Intel Socket 2011-3. The AMD supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel supports quad-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported only on the Intel. The AMD provides 8 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU; the Intel provides 40.

The AMD includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics, while the Intel has none. The AMD's market segment is Desktop, and it is still in active production. The Intel's market segment is Server/Workstation, and it is end-of-life. The AMD was released on 2016-10-02, the Intel on 2014-09-07. The Intel has a launch MSRP of $213. The AMD's part number is AD980BAUM44AB, and the Intel's is SR20A.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures are from different eras and design philosophies. The AMD PRO A12-9800 uses the Excavator architecture, codenamed Bristol Ridge, built on a 28 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die. Its cache layout includes 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache.

The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, codenamed Haswell-EP, built on a 22 nm process at Intel. It contains 2,600 million transistors on a larger 356 mm² die. Its cache hierarchy is different: 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but it adds a substantial 15 MB of shared L3 cache.

The cache difference is notable. The AMD has no L3 cache at all, relying entirely on a small 2 MB L2. The Intel's 15 MB L3 is a massive pool of shared cache that should, in theory, help with data reuse in multi-threaded workloads. Yet the benchmark results show no advantage from this. The lack of an L3 cache on the AMD does not hurt it in these Cinebench runs.

The production status also differs. The AMD is listed as Active, meaning it is still a current product. The Intel is End-of-life, meaning it has been discontinued. The Intel's 22 nm process is older than AMD's 28 nm process, though the Xeon's larger die and more conservative clock speeds keep its power draw at 85W.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture: in raw compute performance, these two CPUs are equivalent. The AMD PRO A12-9800 wins all five benchmark comparisons, but the largest margin is 0.5%. A user moving from one to the other would not notice any difference in rendering speed. The Intel's extra two cores and 15 MB of L3 cache yield no measurable benefit in these tests. The AMD's higher clock speeds yield no measurable benefit either.

The choice comes down to platform features. Pick the AMD PRO A12-9800 if you are building a desktop system on the AM4 platform, need integrated graphics to avoid a discrete GPU, or want a lower 65W TDP for a cooler and quieter system. Its active production status means it is still a viable purchase for a new build.

Pick the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 if your priority is server-grade reliability. The quad-channel memory controller with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, the 40 PCIe lanes, and especially the ECC memory support make it the only option here for a workstation that demands data integrity. The 6 cores provide a theoretical headroom for multi-threaded workloads, even if the benchmark data does not show it being realized in Cinebench. Its end-of-life status is a concern, but its 15 MB of L3 cache and $213 launch MSRP reflect a part designed for a different class of machine.

For a pure performance comparison, the verdict is a tie. For a feature comparison, the AMD is the desktop choice, and the Intel is the server choice. Neither CPU is faster in any meaningful way, so your socket and memory requirements should dictate the decision.