AMD PRO A8-9600 vs Intel Xeon W3550 Comparison

The AMD PRO A8-9600 and the Intel Xeon W3550 make for one of the closest head-to-head matchups in the database, and one of the most intriguing. Two chips separated by roughly seven years of silicon development, built on entirely different architectures for entirely different markets, end up nearly inseparable in the recorded benchmark data. The AMD part is a Bristol Ridge desktop APU on the modern AM4 socket; the Intel part is a Bloomfield workstation chip on the long-retired Socket 1366. Yet both sit at the 26th percentile against all CPUs, and the gap in average benchmark score is under two points. The data invites a closer look at where that tiny difference comes from, and whether the spec sheet tells the same story as the benchmarks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Every recorded test in the database goes the same way: the AMD PRO A8-9600 wins all five. But the margins are remarkably slim, and that is the real story here.

Starting with Cinebench R15 multi-core, the A8-9600 scores 284 against 279 for the Xeon W3550, a 1.8% advantage. Cinebench R20 multi-core tells nearly the same tale: 1184 versus 1166, a 1.5% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core repeats it almost exactly, 2820 versus 2778, again 1.5% in AMD's favor.

The single-core results break the pattern in an interesting way. R20 single-core reads 167 versus 164 (1.8%), and R23 single-core reads 398 versus 392 (1.5%). Why is this interesting? Because the Xeon W3550 runs with 8 threads against the A8-9600's 4, thanks to Intel's simultaneous multithreading, yet that thread advantage produces no measurable lead anywhere in the recorded data. The A8-9600 wins multi-core by the same slim margin as single-core, suggesting the Cinebench workloads in the database simply do not reward the Xeon's extra logical threads.

The average benchmark score sums up the picture: 971 for the AMD part, 956 for the Intel part. A roughly 1.6% overall difference, with five wins from five tests for the A8-9600 and none for the Xeon.

Context matters too. The A8-9600's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-2400S (average score 968, within 0.3%), the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U (968, 0.4%), and the AMD A10-7870K and Intel Core i3-4130 (both 975, 0.4% behind in the other direction). The Xeon W3550's neighborhood is similarly tight: the AMD Athlon X4 870K scores an identical 956, the Intel Core i7-950 sits at 957, and the Intel Celeron N5105 and Intel Xeon W3570 both land at 955. In other words, both chips occupy the same crowded performance tier from opposite directions.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The AMD PRO A8-9600 wins all five recorded tests, but by margins of only 1.5% to 1.8%. The overall average score is 971 versus 956.

Q: Does the Xeon W3550's hyper-threading help it in multi-core tests?

A: Not according to the data. Despite having 8 threads to the A8-9600's 4, the Xeon trails in every multi-core test, including Cinebench R23 multi-core where it scores 2778 against 2820.

Q: How do these two compare to the broader CPU landscape?

A: Both sit at the 26th percentile versus all CPUs in the database, an unusually exact match for two chips from different eras and market segments.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon W3550 does. The AMD PRO A8-9600 does not, which is notable given the "PRO" branding.

Q: Do either of these CPUs have integrated graphics?

A: The A8-9600 includes Radeon R7 integrated graphics. The Xeon W3550 has none and requires a discrete graphics solution.

Q: Are these chips still in production?

A: The A8-9600 is listed as Active, while the Xeon W3550 is End-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The architectural contrast is stark, and it makes the benchmark parity all the more curious.

The A8-9600 is built on the Excavator architecture under the Bristol Ridge codename, fabricated at GlobalFoundries on a 28 nm process. The die measures 250 mm² and packs 3,100 million transistors, a figure that reflects the integrated Radeon R7 graphics sharing the silicon.

The Xeon W3550 belongs to Intel's Nehalem architecture, Bloomfield codename, produced in-house at Intel on a much older 45 nm node. Its die is slightly larger at 263 mm² yet contains only 731 million transistors, consistent with a design from an era before dense GPU blocks were folded onto the CPU package.

Cache design diverges sharply. The A8-9600 carries 320 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with no L3 recorded. The Xeon takes a different approach: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 8 MB L3. That large shared last-level cache was a workstation-class feature, yet the benchmark data shows no payoff against the AMD part's leaner hierarchy.

Thread handling differs as well: 4 cores and 4 threads on the AMD side versus 4 cores and 8 threads on the Intel side, the latter courtesy of Intel's hyper-threading. Memory subsystems are generational apart, with the A8-9600 supporting DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Xeon uses DDR3 on a triple-channel bus with no bandwidth figure recorded.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ on nearly every specification field, and the deltas run in both directions.

• Threads: 4 (A8-9600) versus 8 (W3550)
• Clocks: base 3.10 GHz versus 3.07 GHz, boost 3.40 GHz versus 3.33 GHz, both slightly favoring AMD
• TDP: 65 W versus 130 W, a substantial gap in the A8-9600's favor
• Socket: AMD Socket AM4 versus Intel Socket 1366
• Memory: DDR4 dual-channel with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth versus DDR3 triple-channel, bandwidth unrecorded
• ECC: supported on the Xeon only
• PCIe: Gen 3 with 8 CPU lanes on the A8-9600 versus Gen 2 on the Xeon
• Integrated graphics: Radeon R7 present versus none
• Market segment: Desktop versus Server/Workstation
• Release timing: the Xeon shipped in 2009, the APU in 2016
• Production status: Active versus End-of-life
• Part numbers: AD960BAGM44AB versus SLBEY

The shared specifications are limited to core count (4 each) and the absence of an unlocked multiplier on both.

The Verdict

The data points firmly, if narrowly, toward the AMD PRO A8-9600. It wins every benchmark, holds higher clock speeds, runs at half the TDP of the Xeon (65 W versus 130 W), offers newer DDR4 memory support and recorded bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, includes integrated Radeon R7 graphics, and sits on a socket with an active production ecosystem. For a general desktop workload reflected in the Cinebench suite, it is the stronger recorded pick.

The Xeon W3550 retains two arguments. First, ECC memory support, which the A8-9600 lacks entirely, a meaningful distinction for stability-critical work even if the performance data cannot see it. Second, its nearest-rival cluster includes the Xeon W3570, indicating a family of workstation parts with interchangeable positioning. Beyond those points, the data struggles to make a case for the Intel chip: it is end-of-life, slower in every recorded test, and its 8 threads deliver nothing measurable against the AMD part's 4.

Given a performance gap of only 1.5% to 1.8%, neither chip outclasses the other. The decision is less about speed and more about platform requirements: ECC and workstation heritage on one side, efficiency, newer I/O, and integrated graphics on the other.

Where Each One Wins

AMD PRO A8-9600 wins for:

• Pure rendering throughput, leading all Cinebench multi-core tests (R15: 284 to 279, R20: 1184 to 1166, R23: 2820 to 2778)
• Single-threaded responsiveness, ahead in R20 single-core (167 to 164) and R23 single-core (398 to 392)
• Power-sensitive builds, with a 65 W TDP against the Xeon's 130 W
• Systems needing display output without a discrete graphics card, courtesy of Radeon R7 graphics
• Modern platform requirements, with DDR4 support, 38.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 3

Intel Xeon W3550 wins for:

• Error-correcting memory deployments, as the only chip of the two with ECC support
• Workstation-class cache hierarchies, with a shared 8 MB L3 the AMD part cannot match
• Thread-count-sensitive environments where 8 logical threads are a hard requirement, even though the recorded benchmarks show no payoff

The final scoreboard reads 5 wins to 0 in AMD's favor, but with margins small enough that both CPUs belong in the same tier of the database.