So comparing an ageing but still powerful rack mount server against a DIY desktop PC I think you need to consider the whole package as well as the CPU choice. The FX8350 is 5-6 years newer than the Xeon E5410, and it operates at a much higher clock speed. The only real performance comparison I can find is Passmark where the FX8350 gets a higher score than the Dual E5410 by about 50%. Dual E5410 FX8350 This is just a comparison of processing power and I suspect the main reason for the AMD's lead is it's 4ghz speed. Both are likely to be "quick enough".
Some things I noticed:
The HP server uses DDR2 FB DIMMs. If it doesn't have the memory you need when you buy it, 32Gb of this could be very expensive if you have to buy new RAM. The AMD desktop PC uses standard common DDR3 (can support ECC RAM too, I believe).
The HP server has very basic integrated graphics (relatively low resolution, poor for full time desktop machine) but then it's a server. It does have PCIe slots though. The AMD system would use whatever normal PCIe video card.
I think the AMD PC would likely be a better choice for a desktop machine that can run VMWare comfortably. If you actually need a server and the features that come with that (hot swap drive bays, rack mounting etc. etc.) then the HP would be more suitable.
Edited by jonuk76, 16 October 2014 - 10:32 PM.