AMD Athlon 220GE vs Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably narrow contest between the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 and the AMD Athlon 220GE. Across all six Cinebench comparisons, the Intel processor takes the win, but the margins are consistently small. The largest advantage appears in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where the Xeon scores 54 against the Athlon's 53, a delta of 1.9 percent. That is the only instance where the gap exceeds one percentage point.

In multi-core workloads, the pattern repeats with even tighter spreads. Cinebench R15 multi-core sees the Xeon at 382 and the Athlon at 379, a 0.8 percent lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1595 versus 1580, a 0.9 percent edge. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows with 3798 against 3764, again a 0.9 percent difference. Single-core results in R20 and R23 mirror this: 225 to 223 and 536 to 531, both with a 0.9 percent delta.

The sweep is clean: six wins for the Intel part, zero for the AMD part. But the practical interpretation is that these two processors occupy essentially the same performance tier. A 0.8 to 1.9 percent spread across identical workloads is within the noise of real-world application behavior. The Xeon is technically faster in every measured test, yet the consistency of the margins suggests the architectural differences do not translate into meaningful day-to-day advantages for most users.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this picture. The Xeon's average benchmark score is 1098, placing it at the 31st percentile among all CPUs. Its closest competitor, the AMD PRO A10-8850B, matches that 1098 score exactly, with a delta of 0 percent. The Intel Pentium 6805 and Intel Core i5-3450S both sit at 1099, just 0.1 percent higher. The Intel Core i7-2710QE trails at 1096, a 0.1 percent deficit. The Athlon 220GE posts an average score of 1088, at the 30th percentile. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-3350P, also scores 1088 exactly. The Intel Core i5-2450P comes in at 1086, 0.2 percent behind, while the Intel Core i3-6320 is at 1085, a 0.3 percent gap. The Intel Pentium Gold G5400 leads that group at 1091, 0.3 percent ahead. Both CPUs sit squarely in a crowded mid-range cluster where single-digit percentage differences separate dozens of parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. The AMD Athlon 220GE does not win any of the six recorded comparisons.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two CPUs?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon scores 54 versus the Athlon's 53, a 1.9 percent difference. Every other test shows a delta of 0.8 or 0.9 percent.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Xeon's average score of 1098 ties the AMD PRO A10-8850B exactly and sits within 0.1 percent of the Intel Pentium 6805 and Core i5-3450S. The Athlon's average of 1088 ties the Intel Core i5-3350P and is within 0.3 percent of the Core i5-2450P and Core i3-6320.

Q: Do the benchmark scores reflect the core count difference?

A: Not strongly. The Xeon has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Athlon has 2 cores and 4 threads. Yet in multi-core Cinebench R23, the Xeon scores 3798 and the Athlon scores 3764, a 0.9 percent gap. The extra physical cores provide only a marginal advantage in these tests.

Q: Is the AMD Athlon 220GE an active product?

A: Yes, its production status is listed as active. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 is marked as end-of-life.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The AMD Athlon 220GE has a base clock of 3.40 GHz, compared to the Xeon's 2.80 GHz. Neither processor has a boost clock listed in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from fundamentally different design eras and philosophies. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP variant, built on a 22 nm process at Intel's fabs. It packs 2,600 million transistors into a 356 mm² die. The AMD Athlon 220GE uses the Zen architecture, codenamed Raven Ridge, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. That chip contains 4,950 million transistors on a 209.8 mm² die. The transistor count is nearly double, but the die is smaller, reflecting the denser process node.

Cache hierarchies diverge as well. The Xeon allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 10 MB L3 pool. The Athlon provides 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's larger L3 cache is typical of a server-oriented part designed for data-heavy workloads, while the Athlon's smaller L3 with larger per-core caches suits a desktop efficiency profile.

Memory support differentiates these parts further. Both accept DDR4, but the Xeon runs a quad-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Athlon uses a dual-channel bus at 42.7 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for workstation and server reliability. The Athlon does not support ECC. PCIe lane counts differ significantly: the Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Athlon offers only 8. That gap matters for expansion-heavy systems with multiple GPUs or storage controllers.

Integrated graphics is another split. The Athlon includes Radeon Vega 3 graphics, making it a complete APU that can drive a display without a discrete card. The Xeon has no integrated graphics listed, which is standard for server/workstation Xeons that assume a dedicated GPU will be present. The market segments reflect this: the Xeon targets server and workstation deployments, while the Athlon is a desktop part.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows clear divergences beyond the architectural details. The Xeon has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Athlon has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks differ: the Xeon runs at 2.80 GHz, the Athlon at 3.40 GHz. Thermal design power is a major gap, with the Xeon rated at 140 watts and the Athlon at just 35 watts. That is a four-fold difference in power draw, which has direct implications for cooling requirements and system cost.

Sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, the Athlon uses AMD Socket AM4. Process nodes differ as noted, with the Xeon at 22 nm and the Athlon at 14 nm. Transistors and die size follow the process story. Memory bus width and bandwidth are distinct, as are PCIe lane counts. ECC support is present on the Xeon, absent on the Athlon. The Athlon includes integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics; the Xeon has none.

Production status separates them: the Xeon is end-of-life, the Athlon is active. Release dates are roughly four years apart, with the Xeon launching in September 2014 and the Athlon in December 2018. The Athlon carries a launch MSRP of $65, which is the only price-related figure in the database for either part. Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier. Part numbers are recorded as SR20K for the Xeon and YD220GC6M2OFB for the Athlon.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two processors that perform nearly identically in Cinebench workloads despite vastly different underlying designs. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins every head-to-head test, but the largest margin is 1.9 percent, and most tests land at 0.9 percent. That is not a meaningful performance advantage in real-world use. The Xeon's extra physical cores, larger L3 cache, quad-channel memory, and ECC support do not translate into a significant benchmark lead over the Athlon's higher clock speed and newer Zen architecture.

Who should pick the Xeon? The specification sheet makes the case. It offers quad-channel memory bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s, 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, and ECC support, all in a package designed for server and workstation duty. The database lists its production status as end-of-life, but for a system that needs ECC memory, extensive PCIe expansion, and sustained multi-threaded throughput, the Xeon's platform features are the differentiators. The 140 watt TDP is a cost, but it buys workstation-class capabilities that the Athlon simply does not provide.

Who should pick the Athlon? The data shows it is an active product with a 35 watt TDP, integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics, and a 3.40 GHz base clock. For a desktop build that does not need ECC, does not require many PCIe lanes, and wants to avoid a discrete GPU, the Athlon covers that ground. Its benchmark scores are within 1 percent of the Xeon across the board, so there is no meaningful performance sacrifice in Cinebench-style workloads. The dual-channel memory at 42.7 GB/s is adequate for mainstream use, and the smaller footprint and lower power draw make it a more sensible choice for a typical desktop.

The verdict depends on platform requirements, not raw speed. If the workload demands ECC, quad-channel memory, or high PCIe lane counts, the Xeon is the only option. If the priority is an active, low-power, integrated-graphics desktop processor, the Athlon matches the Xeon's performance at a fraction of the power envelope. In pure benchmark terms, the Xeon is technically ahead, but the 0.8 to 1.9 percent margins are so small that neither CPU can claim a decisive victory. The selection should rest on the surrounding platform, not the Cinebench scores.