CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5630 and AMD PRO A12-9800 are two processors from different eras and market segments, yet their benchmark results place them in an unusually tight competition. The data shows that despite a six-year gap in release dates and fundamentally different architectures, both CPUs land at the 31st percentile among all tested processors. The Xeon E5630, a server-class part from 2010, and the PRO A12-9800, a desktop APU from 2016, deliver nearly identical average benchmark scores, with the Intel part taking a narrow lead across every single test in the head-to-head comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results reveal an exceptionally close contest, with the Intel Xeon E5630 winning all five head-to-head tests by margins that range from 0.3% to 0.6%. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Xeon scores 324 against the PRO A12-9800's 323, a difference of just 0.3%. This pattern continues in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Intel part scores 1354 versus 1347, a 0.5% advantage. The single-core results follow the same trajectory: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon leads 191 to 190, again by 0.5%.

The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon E5630 scores 3226 compared to the AMD's 3208, a 0.6% delta. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows the Xeon ahead at 455 versus 453, a 0.4% margin. While the Xeon wins all five tests, the differences are so small that they fall within typical run-to-run variance for benchmark software. The average benchmark scores reflect this parity: the Xeon E5630 averages 1110, while the PRO A12-9800 averages 1104, a difference of less than 1%.

The nearest rivals for each CPU further illustrate how close these parts are to a broader performance cluster. The Xeon E5630 sits alongside the Intel Core i7-5557U with an identical average score of 1110, and the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 at 1109, just 0.1% behind. The AMD PRO A12-9800's closest competitor is the AMD Opteron 3280 at 1106, which is 0.2% ahead, and the AMD Athlon X4 845 also at 1106. Both processors occupy the same performance tier, making the choice between them dependent on factors other than raw compute throughput.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Xeon E5630 uses the Westmere-EP architecture on a 32 nm process node manufactured by Intel, featuring 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. It offers 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock of 2.53 GHz and a boost clock of 2.80 GHz. Cache configuration includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR3 with a triple-channel bus, and ECC memory is supported. The Xeon lacks integrated graphics and uses PCIe Gen 2, targeting the server and workstation market segment.

The AMD PRO A12-9800, by contrast, uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 3,100 million transistors onto a 250 mm² die. It matches the Xeon's 4 cores but only provides 4 threads, with a much higher base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The cache hierarchy is different: 320 KB of L1 total and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 cache at all. Memory support is DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and a rated memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, but ECC is not supported. The PRO A12-9800 includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics and uses PCIe Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes, targeting the desktop segment.

The transistor count difference is notable: AMD's chip has roughly 2.6 times the transistor count of the Intel part, despite the older 28 nm process. This reflects the integration of the GPU and the different design priorities. The PRO A12-9800's higher clocks compensate for its lack of SMT and smaller cache pool, while the Xeon relies on its larger 12 MB L3 cache and 8 threads to stay competitive. The memory subsystems also diverge, with the Xeon using triple-channel DDR3 and the AMD using dual-channel DDR4 with higher bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E5630, but the margins are so slim that they suggest a functional tie in multi-core rendering workloads. The Xeon's consistent, albeit tiny, lead across all five Cinebench tests points to its advantage in threaded workloads where its 8 threads can be utilized. The 0.6% edge in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the largest delta in the comparison, indicates that the Xeon's SMT implementation provides a slight edge over the AMD's 4-thread design in heavily threaded scenarios.

The PRO A12-9800, despite losing all benchmark comparisons, offers advantages that are not captured in these CPU-only tests. Its integrated Radeon R7 graphics make it a suitable choice for systems that require graphical output without a discrete GPU, a feature the Xeon completely lacks. The AMD part also supports DDR4 memory, which provides a higher memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s compared to the Xeon's unspecified DDR3 bandwidth. For desktop users, the PRO A12-9800's higher base and boost clocks (3.80 GHz and 4.20 GHz versus 2.53 GHz and 2.80 GHz) may translate to snappier responsiveness in lightly threaded applications, even if the Cinebench single-core scores are nearly identical.

The Xeon E5630, however, wins on platform capabilities for server and workstation use. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for data integrity in professional environments, and uses a triple-channel memory bus. Its socket, Intel Socket 1366, targets a platform designed for multi-socket configurations and enterprise reliability. The PRO A12-9800's AMD Socket AM4 is a mainstream desktop socket with no ECC support and a dual-channel memory bus, making it less suitable for mission-critical workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5630 has an average benchmark score of 1110, while the AMD PRO A12-9800 averages 1104, giving the Intel part a slight edge.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores. However, the Intel Xeon E5630 supports 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the AMD PRO A12-9800 has only 4 threads.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5630 supports ECC memory, while the AMD PRO A12-9800 does not.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Intel Xeon E5630 scores 3226 against the AMD's 3208, a 0.6% difference.

Q: Does the AMD PRO A12-9800 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the AMD PRO A12-9800 includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics. The Intel Xeon E5630 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD PRO A12-9800 has a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, compared to the Intel Xeon E5630's boost clock of 2.80 GHz.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Intel Xeon E5630 uses the Westmere architecture on a 32 nm process from Intel, with 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. The AMD PRO A12-9800 uses the Excavator architecture on a 28 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 3,100 million transistors on a 250 mm² die. The Xeon offers 8 threads from its 4 cores, while the AMD provides only 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.53 GHz for the Xeon and 3.80 GHz for the AMD; boost clocks are 2.80 GHz and 4.20 GHz, respectively.

Cache configurations diverge significantly: the Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3, while the AMD has 320 KB of L1 total and 2 MB of L2 with no L3. Memory support differs with the Xeon using DDR3 on a triple-channel bus and the AMD using DDR4 on a dual-channel bus, the latter with a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. PCIe generations also differ, with the Xeon using Gen 2 and the AMD using Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the AMD includes Radeon R7. The Xeon targets the server/workstation segment on Intel Socket 1366 with an 80 W TDP, while the AMD targets the desktop segment on AMD Socket AM4 with a 65 W TDP. The Xeon was released in 2010 and is end-of-life, while the AMD was released in 2016 and remains active.