A8-3800 vs Xeon E5420

CPU

GPU

A8-3800

4 Cores4 Thrd65 WWMax: 2.7 GHz2011

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Xeon E5420

4 Cores4 Thrd80 WWMax: 2.5 GHz2007

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

A8-3800 vs Xeon E5420 Performance Spectrum

A8-3800

4 / 4

2,051

+0.3%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon E5420

4 / 4

2,044

0.0%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

A8-3800 vs Xeon E5420 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

A8-3800 vs Xeon E5420: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

A8-3800

2011

Why buy it

✅+17.8% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Costs $7,084 less on MSRP ($130 MSRP vs $7,214 MSRP).
✅Delivers 5468.2% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 15.8 vs 0.3 PassMark/$ ($130 MSRP vs $7,214 MSRP).
✅Draws 65W instead of 80W, a 15W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6550D, while Xeon E5420 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5420, which brings 4 cores / 4 threads and 32 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5420

2007

Why buy it

✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 4 threads, plus 32 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅100% more PCIe lanes (32 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (314 vs 370).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (881 vs 1,350).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 0.3 vs 15.8 PassMark/$ ($7,214 MSRP vs $130 MSRP).
❌23.1% higher power demand at 80W vs 65W.
❌No integrated graphics, while A8-3800 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is A8-3800 better than Xeon E5420?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5420 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while A8-3800 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, A8-3800 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.9% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, A8-3800 is the stronger fit. You are getting 53.2% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

A8-3800 is the better buy right now. A8-3800 comes in $7,084 cheaper on MSRP at $130 MSRP versus $7,214 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 5468.2% better value on MSRP (15.8 vs 0.3 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

A8-3800 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2007) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

A8-3800 vs Xeon E5420 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

A8-3800

The A8-3800 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2014-01-01. It is based on the Llano (2011−2012) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.7 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: FM1. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,051 points. Launch price was $90.

Xeon E5420

The Xeon E5420 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 11 November 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Harpertown (2007−2008) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 6 MB (total). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard. Passmark benchmark score: 2,044 points. Launch price was $316.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the A8-3800 and Xeon E5420 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.7 GHz on the A8-3800 versus 2.5 GHz on the Xeon E5420 — a 7.7% clock advantage for the A8-3800 (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The A8-3800 uses the Llano (2011−2012) architecture (32 nm), while the Xeon E5420 uses Harpertown (2007−2008) (45 nm). In PassMark, the A8-3800 scores 2,051 against the Xeon E5420's 2,044 — a 0.3% lead for the A8-3800. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 370 vs 314, a 16.4% lead for the A8-3800 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 1,350 vs 881 (42% advantage for the A8-3800). L3 cache: 0 kB on the A8-3800 vs 12 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon E5420.

Feature	A8-3800	Xeon E5420
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 4
Boost Clock	2.7 GHz+8%	2.5 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz	2.5 GHz+4%
L3 Cache	0 kB	12 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	6 MB (total)+500%
Process	32 nm-29%	45 nm
Architecture	Llano (2011−2012)	Harpertown (2007−2008)
PassMark	2,051	2,044
Geekbench 6 Single	370+18%	314
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,350+53%	881

🧠

Memory & Platform

The A8-3800 uses the FM1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E5420 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR3-1866 on the A8-3800 versus DDR2-667 on the Xeon E5420 — the A8-3800 supports 179.8% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 32 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (A8-3800) vs 4 (Xeon E5420). PCIe lanes: 16 (A8-3800) vs 32 (Xeon E5420) — the Xeon E5420 offers 16 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: A55,A75 (A8-3800) and Intel 5000P,Intel 5100,Intel 5400 (Xeon E5420).

Feature	A8-3800	Xeon E5420
Socket	FM1	LGA771
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1866+180%	DDR2-667
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	32 GB
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	32+100%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: AMD-V (A8-3800) vs Yes (Xeon E5420). The A8-3800 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6550D), while the Xeon E5420 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: A8-3800 targets Budget Desktop. Direct competitor: A8-3800 rivals Core i3-2100.

Feature	A8-3800	Xeon E5420
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 6550D	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	AMD-V	Yes
Target Use	Budget Desktop	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the A8-3800 was priced at $130, while the Xeon E5420 came in at $7214. On launch pricing ($130 vs $7214), A8-3800 was $7084 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the A8-3800 delivers 15.8 pts/$ vs 0.3 pts/$ for the Xeon E5420 — making the A8-3800 the 192.9% better value option.

Feature	A8-3800	Xeon E5420
MSRP	$130-98%	$7214
Performance per Dollar	15.8+5167%	0.3
Release Date	2011	2007

Search A8-3800 on Amazon

Search Xeon E5420 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.