AMD Ryzen 3 3100 vs Intel Xeon E-2124G Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 and the Intel Xeon E-2124G are both quad-core processors, but they target different segments and deliver contrasting performance profiles. The recorded data shows a clear split: the Ryzen 3 3100 dominates in multi-threaded workloads and surprisingly wins the single-core Cinebench test, while the Xeon E-2124G only takes a narrow victory in Geekbench single-core. This page analyzes the head-to-head benchmark results, architectural differences, and specification disparities from the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result in the head-to-head comparison is the Cinebench R15 multi-core test. The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 scores 991, while the Intel Xeon E-2124G scores 613, giving the AMD part a 61.7% advantage. This is a massive margin, largely explained by the Ryzen 3 3100 having 8 threads versus the Xeon’s 4 threads, allowing it to process parallel workloads far more efficiently.

The single-core Cinebench R15 result is unexpected and even more lopsided. The Ryzen 3 3100 scores 178, while the Xeon E-2124G scores 86, resulting in a 107% delta in favor of AMD. This is a striking outlier because the Xeon E-2124G has a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz compared to the Ryzen 3 3100’s 3.90 GHz. Benchmark results indicate that the Ryzen 3 3100’s Zen 2 architecture extracts more instructions per clock in this specific legacy test, despite the clock speed disadvantage.

In Geekbench multi-core, the Ryzen 3 3100 again leads, scoring 4898 versus 4263 for the Xeon E-2124G, a 14.9% advantage. This is a more moderate win compared to Cinebench, but it confirms that the AMD processor’s simultaneous multithreading (SMT) provides a consistent edge in fully threaded workloads.

The only benchmark where the Intel Xeon E-2124G wins is Geekbench single-core. The Xeon scores 1438, while the Ryzen 3 3100 scores 1395, a 3% delta. This is a narrow victory, indicating that in lightly threaded, modern workloads, the Xeon’s higher boost clock (4.50 GHz) can overcome the architectural efficiency of Zen 2. However, the margin is small enough that real-world differences would be difficult to perceive.

Overall, the head-to-head record stands at 3 wins for the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 and 1 win for the Intel Xeon E-2124G. The average benchmark score for the Ryzen 3 3100 is 2055, slightly above the Xeon’s 2034, though both sit near the 45th percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are mid-pack performers overall.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 is the clear choice for multi-threaded productivity workloads. The Cinebench R15 multi-core result (991 vs 613) and Geekbench multi-core result (4898 vs 4263) show that the Ryzen 3 3100 handles rendering, video encoding, and compilation tasks significantly better. The 8 threads versus 4 threads is the primary driver, but the Zen 2 architecture’s efficiency amplifies this advantage. Users running heavily parallel software will see a substantial performance uplift with the AMD part.

The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 also wins in the legacy single-core Cinebench R15 test, which often reflects older applications that are not optimized for modern instruction sets. The 107% delta is extreme, though this test may be an anomaly given the Xeon’s higher clock speed. Still, the data shows that the Ryzen 3 3100 is not a slouch in single-threaded legacy workloads.

The Intel Xeon E-2124G wins only in Geekbench single-core, scoring 1438 versus 1395. This makes it the better choice for lightly threaded, modern applications that rely on high clock speeds, such as certain database operations, single-threaded scripting, or older games that do not scale across cores. The 3% delta is small, so the practical benefit is limited, but it does indicate that the Xeon’s boost clock of 4.50 GHz provides a real advantage in this scenario.

For server or workstation environments, the Xeon E-2124G offers ECC memory support, which the Ryzen 3 3100 lacks. This is not a performance win, but it is a reliability feature that matters for data integrity in mission-critical workloads. The Xeon also includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics P630), while the Ryzen 3 3100 has no integrated graphics, making the Xeon a more self-contained option for basic display output.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is significant. The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Matisse, and is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Xeon E-2124G uses the Coffee Lake architecture, codenamed Coffee Lake-S WS, and is built on a 14 nm process at Intel. This process node advantage (7 nm versus 14 nm) allows the Ryzen 3 3100 to pack 3,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, while the Xeon has a larger 126 mm² die with a transistor count that is not recorded in the database. The smaller, denser process is a key reason why the Ryzen 3 3100 achieves higher performance per clock and better multi-threaded scaling.

The core and thread configuration differs fundamentally. The Ryzen 3 3100 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon E-2124G has 4 cores and 4 threads. This means the Ryzen 3 3100 can execute two threads per core via SMT, effectively doubling its logical thread count. This directly explains the large multi-core benchmark deltas.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Ryzen 3 3100 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon E-2124G has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but only 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen 3 3100’s larger L2 cache (double per core) and L3 cache (double total) provide more on-die data storage, which reduces memory latency and improves performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

The memory interfaces are both dual-channel DDR4, but the Ryzen 3 3100 has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s versus the Xeon’s 42.7 GB/s. This 20% bandwidth advantage helps the Ryzen 3 3100 in memory-bound tasks. The Ryzen 3 3100 also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the Xeon E-2124G is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. This gives the AMD platform double the I/O bandwidth for modern NVMe drives and GPUs, though the Xeon’s PCIe Gen 3 is still sufficient for most workloads.

The Ryzen 3 3100 has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the Xeon E-2124G is locked. This is a meaningful difference for enthusiasts, as the Ryzen 3 3100 can be pushed beyond its 3.90 GHz boost clock, whereas the Xeon is fixed at its stock 4.50 GHz boost.

Specification Differences

The base clock speeds differ: the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 runs at 3.60 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E-2124G runs at 3.40 GHz. The boost clocks are reversed, with the Ryzen 3 3100 reaching 3.90 GHz and the Xeon reaching 4.50 GHz. The Xeon’s higher boost clock gives it a single-thread advantage in burst workloads, but the Ryzen’s higher base clock helps sustain all-core loads.

Thermal design power (TDP) also differs. The Ryzen 3 3100 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Xeon E-2124G has a TDP of 71 watts. The Ryzen 3 3100 delivers more multi-threaded performance while consuming less power, highlighting the efficiency of the 7 nm process. The Xeon’s higher TDP is partly due to its integrated graphics and older 14 nm process.

Socket compatibility is entirely different. The Ryzen 3 3100 uses AMD Socket AM4, while the Xeon E-2124G uses Intel Socket 1151. This means they are not interchangeable, and platform choice dictates which processor can be used. The Ryzen 3 3100 is a desktop part, while the Xeon E-2124G is classified as a server/workstation part.

Memory features differ in ECC support. The Xeon E-2124G supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 3 3100 does not. This makes the Xeon suitable for error-correcting memory configurations, a requirement for many server workloads. The integrated graphics also differ: the Xeon includes HD Graphics P630, while the Ryzen 3 3100 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

The production status and release dates differ. The Ryzen 3 3100 is marked as Active, released on 2020-04-23, while the Xeon E-2124G is End-of-life, released on 2018-07-11. The Ryzen 3 3100 is a newer part and remains in production, while the Xeon is discontinued. The launch MSRP for the Ryzen 3 3100 is $99, and for the Xeon E-2124G it is $218.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 wins all recorded multi-threaded tests. It leads by 61.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (991 vs 613) and by 14.9% in Geekbench multi-core (4898 vs 4263).

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E-2124G win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Xeon E-2124G wins Geekbench single-core, scoring 1438 versus 1395 for the Ryzen 3 3100, a 3% delta. It does not win any other recorded head-to-head test.

Q: Why does the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 score so much higher in Cinebench R15 multi-core?

A: The Ryzen 3 3100 has 8 threads versus 4 threads on the Xeon E-2124G. The simultaneous multithreading allows the Ryzen to process double the logical threads, which is the primary factor behind the 61.7% advantage.

Q: Can the Intel Xeon E-2124G be overclocked?

A: No, the Xeon E-2124G has a locked multiplier. The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking beyond its 3.90 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2124G supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 does not. This makes the Xeon more suitable for server and workstation environments requiring error correction.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Xeon E-2124G is built on a 14 nm process at Intel. This allows the Ryzen 3 3100 to have a smaller die size of 74 mm² versus 126 mm² for the Xeon.