A8-7410 vs Xeon X5647

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon X5647
2011
4 cores / 8 threads, 130 Watt
2.90
+62%

Xeon X5647 outperforms A8-7410 by an impressive 62% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon X5647 and A8-7410 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking16672024
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.62no data
Market segmentServerLaptop
Seriesno dataAMD A-Series
Power efficiency2.036.53
Architecture codenameWestmere-EP (2010−2011)Carrizo-L (2015)
Release date14 February 2011 (13 years ago)7 May 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$175no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon X5647 and A8-7410 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads84
Base clock speed2.93 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz2.5 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache256 KB (per core)2048 KB
L3 cache12 MB (shared)no data
Chip lithography32 nm28 nm
Die size239 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature80 °C90 °C
Number of transistors1,170 million930 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Xeon X5647 and A8-7410 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration2no data
SocketFCLGA1366,LGA1366FP4
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt12 - 25 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X5647 and A8-7410. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2MMX, SSE4.2, AES, AVX, BMI1, F16C, AMD64, VT, AMD-V
AES-NI++
FMA-FMA4
AVX-+
PowerNow-+
PowerGating-+
VirusProtect-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology1.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
Idle States+no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE40 Bitno data

Security technologies

Xeon X5647 and A8-7410 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X5647 and A8-7410 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data
IOMMU 2.0-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X5647 and A8-7410. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3L-1866
Maximum memory size288 GBno data
Max memory channels31
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon R5 Graphics
Enduro-+
Switchable graphics-+
UVD-+
VCE-+

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Xeon X5647 and A8-7410 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort-+
HDMI-+

Graphics API support

APIs supported by Xeon X5647 and A8-7410 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXno dataDirectX® 12
Vulkan-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X5647 and A8-7410.

PCIe version2.02.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Xeon X5647 2.90
+62%
A8-7410 1.79

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Xeon X5647 4441
+62%
A8-7410 2741

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.90 1.79
Recency 14 February 2011 7 May 2015
Threads 8 4
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 12 Watt

Xeon X5647 has a 62% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more threads.

A8-7410, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 983.3% lower power consumption.

The Xeon X5647 is our recommended choice as it beats the A8-7410 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon X5647 is a server/workstation processor while A8-7410 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X5647 and A8-7410, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Xeon X5647
Xeon X5647
AMD A8-7410
A8-7410

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 17 votes

Rate Xeon X5647 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 692 votes

Rate A8-7410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon X5647 or A8-7410, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.