AMD PRO A12-9800 vs Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all five tests with a consistent margin. The AMD PRO A12-9800 does not manage a single victory, despite its higher base clock and boost clock.

The most striking pattern is the uniformity of the Intel advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 386 against the AMD's 323, a 19.5% lead. That margin holds almost exactly across every other test: R20 multi-core shows a 19.6% gap (1611 vs 1347), R20 single-core shows 19.5% (227 vs 190), and R23 multi-core shows 19.6% (3836 vs 3208). Even in R23 single-core, where the AMD's higher clock speeds might be expected to help, Intel wins 541 to 453, a 19.4% delta. This consistency suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the two processors land in the same percentile tier. Both sit at the 31st percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 1109 for the Xeon and 1104 for the AMD. This is a classic case where aggregate averages obscure the head-to-head reality. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-4570T (avg score 1108, delta 0.1%) and the Intel Xeon E5630 (1110, -0.1%), placing it in a tight cluster. The AMD PRO A12-9800's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 (1103, 0.1%) and the Intel Pentium Gold G6605 (1103, 0.1%). Both chips are effectively surrounded by similar-performing parts, but in direct competition, the Xeon is consistently faster.

Single-core performance is particularly telling. The AMD runs at a 3.80 GHz base clock with a 4.20 GHz boost, while the Intel is locked to 1.90 GHz with no boost capability. Yet the Intel still wins single-core tests by nearly 20%. In R20 single-core, 227 vs 190 means the Xeon delivers roughly 19.5% more performance per clock in this workload. The AMD's clock advantage of over 2 GHz is not enough to overcome the Intel's Haswell-EP architecture efficiency. This is a decisive data point for anyone comparing these two on raw speed.

Multi-core results follow the same narrative. The Xeon has six cores and six threads, while the AMD has four cores and four threads. The Intel's 19.6% lead in R23 multi-core (3836 vs 3208) aligns almost exactly with its single-core lead, indicating that the Xeon's advantage scales linearly across its additional two cores. In other words, the Intel chip isn't just winning because it has more cores — it wins per-core too. The AMD's two fewer cores compound its per-core deficit, yet the total margin remains steady at roughly 19.5%, suggesting the Excavator architecture's multi-core scaling is relatively efficient even if its absolute throughput is lower.

There is no scenario in the data where the AMD PRO A12-9800 closes the gap. The largest Intel margin appears in R20 multi-core (19.6%), and the smallest in R23 single-core (19.4%). That 0.2 percentage point spread is negligible. The verdict from the benchmarks is clear: the Xeon E5-2609 v3 is the faster processor in every measured workload, with a consistent 19.4% to 19.6% advantage across both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1109, while the AMD PRO A12-9800 scores 1104. The difference is small — roughly 0.5% — but it favors the Intel part.

Q: Does the AMD PRO A12-9800 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 winning all five tests, with win counts of 5 for Intel and 0 for AMD. The AMD does not secure a single victory in any Cinebench R15, R20, or R23 workload.

Q: How does the AMD's higher clock speed compare to the Intel's performance?

A: The AMD runs at 3.80 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost, while the Intel is fixed at 1.90 GHz with no boost. Despite the AMD's clock advantage of over 2 GHz, the Intel still leads by 19.4% in R23 single-core (541 vs 453) and 19.5% in R20 single-core (227 vs 190).

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD PRO A12-9800 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel part has two additional cores and two additional threads.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 and the AMD PRO A12-9800 are at the 31st percentile among all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores (1109 vs 1104) place them in the same overall performance tier.

Q: Which processor has a higher launch MSRP?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has a launch MSRP of $306. The AMD PRO A12-9800 has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a straightforward conclusion for most users: the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 is the faster processor. It wins every head-to-head test by a margin of roughly 19.5%, and it does so in both single-core and multi-core workloads. The consistency of that margin — from 19.4% in R23 single-core to 19.6% in R20 multi-core — indicates a broad architectural advantage that is unlikely to be reversed by any typical workload.

The AMD PRO A12-9800 should be considered only by users who prioritize its other characteristics. It has a lower TDP (65W vs 85W), integrated Radeon R7 graphics, and a smaller die size (250 mm² vs 356 mm²). It also uses a more common AM4 socket with dual-channel memory, whereas the Intel uses Socket 2011-3 with quad-channel memory. For a desktop user who needs integrated graphics and lower power draw, the AMD is the only option of the two — the Intel has no integrated graphics listed.

However, for pure CPU performance, the data is decisive. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 leads by 19.5% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (386 vs 323) and by 19.6% in R20 multi-core (1611 vs 1347). The AMD's higher clock speeds do not compensate for its architectural deficit. Anyone choosing between these two strictly on compute throughput should pick the Intel part, despite its older release date (September 2014 vs October 2016) and end-of-life production status.

The AMD's only path to recommendation is a scenario where its integrated graphics, lower TDP, or active production status matter more than raw speed. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 is end-of-life, while the AMD PRO A12-9800 is listed as active. But the benchmark data offers no performance reason to prefer the AMD. It trails in every measured test, and its average benchmark score (1104) is lower than the Intel's (1109).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 uses 6 cores and 6 threads, while the AMD PRO A12-9800 uses 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel's base clock is 1.90 GHz with no boost clock; the AMD runs at 3.80 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost. The Intel has a TDP of 85W, the AMD a lower 65W.

Memory configuration differs significantly. The Intel supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The AMD also supports DDR4 but over a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and it does not support ECC memory. The Intel offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD offers only 8 PCIe Gen 3 lanes.

The Intel has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD has 320 KB of total L1 cache and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache listed. The Intel's socket is Intel Socket 2011-3; the AMD uses AMD Socket AM4. The Intel has no integrated graphics, while the AMD includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics.

Production status also differs: the Intel is end-of-life, the AMD is active. The Intel has a launch MSRP of $306; the AMD has no listed MSRP. The Intel's part number is SR1YC; the AMD's is AD980BAUM44AB. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 is built on the Haswell architecture with the codename Haswell-EP, using a 22 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. The AMD PRO A12-9800 uses the Excavator architecture with the codename Bristol Ridge, built on a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The smaller 22 nm node gives Intel a manufacturing advantage, which is reflected in the benchmark results.

Transistor counts and die sizes tell a nuanced story. The AMD chip packs 3,100 million transistors into a 250 mm² die, while the Intel has 2,600 million transistors on a larger 356 mm² die. The AMD's higher transistor density on a smaller die suggests a more complex integrated design — it includes Radeon R7 graphics, which the Intel lacks entirely. But the Intel's larger die and lower transistor count indicate a simpler, more power-efficient compute-focused design.

Cache architecture differs substantially. The Intel uses a per-core L1 design (64 KB per core) and per-core L2 (256 KB per core), topped with 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD uses 320 KB total L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. The lack of L3 cache on the AMD is a significant architectural gap, likely contributing to its lower benchmark scores despite much higher clock speeds.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Intel supports quad-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s and ECC support, making it suited for server or workstation reliability. The AMD supports dual-channel DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC, which is typical for desktop use. The Intel's 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU-only) compare to the AMD's 8 lanes, reinforcing the Intel's server/workstation positioning.

The Intel's generation is listed as "Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP)" and its market segment is Server/Workstation. The AMD's generation is "A12 (Bristol Ridge)" and its market segment is Desktop. These are different product families aimed at different use cases, but the benchmark data shows the server-oriented Intel part wins in every measured compute test. The AMD's integrated graphics and lower TDP are its architectural advantages, but they do not translate into any CPU performance win.