AMD Ryzen 3 3100 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 and the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 are both 4-core, 8-thread processors, yet they represent vastly different eras and design philosophies. The database shows the Ryzen 3 3100, a 2020 desktop part built on AMD’s Zen 2 architecture, squaring off against a 2015 server/workstation Skylake chip. While their average benchmark scores are remarkably close, the individual test results reveal a clear generational gap, particularly in single-threaded performance. This analysis digs into the recorded data to see where each chip truly stands.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 has an average benchmark score of 2055, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 has an average score of 2030. This puts the Ryzen 3 3100 in the 46th percentile of all CPUs, slightly ahead of the Xeon's 45th percentile.

Q: How does the Ryzen 3 3100 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 3 3100 sits very close to the Intel Core i7-8705G and Intel Core i3-10105T, both with an average score of 2058, a delta of -0.1%. It is also within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G (score 2059) and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i7-7820HK (score 2048).

Q: What is the most significant performance gap between these two CPUs in the head-to-head data?

A: The largest recorded difference is in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 scores 178 compared to the Xeon's 99, a massive 79.8% advantage for the AMD chip.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 has ECC memory support enabled. In contrast, the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5's base clock of 3.50 GHz. Both processors share the same 3.90 GHz boost clock.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 is listed as "Active" in production, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 is marked as "End-of-life".

Architecture Differences

The foundational differences between these two chips are stark, stemming from their respective process nodes and design generations. The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 is built on TSMC's 7 nm process, packing 3,800 million transistors into a die size of 74 mm². In contrast, the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 uses Intel's 14 nm process, with 1,750 million transistors across a much larger 122 mm² die. This process advantage is a primary driver for the Ryzen's efficiency and performance characteristics.

Both CPUs feature 4 cores and 8 threads, but their cache hierarchies differ. The Ryzen 3 3100 has 512 KB of L2 cache per core and a substantial 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon E3-1240 v5, on the other hand, has a smaller 256 KB of L2 cache per core and only 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The L1 cache is identical at 64 KB per core.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD chip supports DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus, yielding a theoretical memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Intel Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4, also dual-channel, but its recorded memory bandwidth is significantly lower at 34.1 GB/s. Furthermore, the Xeon is the only one of the two with ECC memory support, a key feature for its server/workstation market segment.

Connectivity and platform features highlight the generational leap. The Ryzen 3 3100 uses the AMD Socket AM4 and offers PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 uses Intel Socket 1151 and is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The Ryzen also has an unlocked multiplier, allowing for overclocking, whereas the Xeon is locked. These architecture choices clearly define the intended use cases: a modern, flexible desktop CPU versus a legacy, stability-focused server part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is limited to two Cinebench R15 tests, but the results are decisive. In the multi-core test, the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 scores 991, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 scores 707. This gives the AMD processor a 40.2% victory, demonstrating a substantial lead in threaded workloads despite identical core and thread counts.

The single-core test shows an even more dramatic disparity. The Ryzen 3 3100 achieves a score of 178, compared to the Xeon's 99. This 79.8% delta is a massive difference and underscores the massive IPC (instructions per clock) improvements made by AMD with Zen 2. The Xeon, based on the older Skylake architecture, simply cannot keep pace in per-core performance.

Looking at the broader benchmark data within the database, the pattern continues. In the Cinebench R20 tests, the Xeon scores 2948 multi-core and 416 single-core. While there is no direct Ryzen 3 3100 score for R20 in the pack, the R15 single-core gap strongly suggests the Ryzen would hold a similar lead. The Xeon's own Cinebench R23 scores are 7020 multi-core and 991 single-core. The 3DMark tests for the Ryzen 3 3100 further illustrate its balanced performance: 3001 for 16 threads, 2214 for 4 threads, and 660 for single-thread. These scores, especially the strong single-thread result, reinforce the picture of a processor that excels in both lightly and heavily threaded scenarios relative to the older Xeon. The data shows the Ryzen 3 3100 is the clear winner in every head-to-head comparison recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion. For virtually any workload, the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 is the superior processor based on the recorded benchmarks. Its 40.2% lead in multi-core Cinebench R15 and its staggering 79.8% lead in single-core performance make it the obvious choice for general computing, gaming, and productivity tasks.

The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5's only advantages are its support for ECC memory and its historical market segment as a server/workstation chip. If the requirement is a legacy platform with ECC memory support, the Xeon might be the only option. However, from a pure performance standpoint, the Ryzen 3 3100 dominates. Its higher average benchmark score, better process node, larger cache, and superior memory bandwidth make it a far more capable and modern processor. The Ryzen 3 3100 is the clear winner for anyone building a new system, while the Xeon is relegated to specific, niche server applications where ECC is a mandatory requirement.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 3 3100 | Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 80 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | Intel Socket 1151 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Skylake |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 3,800 million | 1,750 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 122 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3, DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 34.1 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2020-04-23 | 2015-10-18 |

| Launch MSRP | $99 | $282 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | 100-000000284 | SR2LD |

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen 3 3100 Wins:

• Single-Thread Performance: With a 79.8% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core, this is the Ryzen's most dominant category. This translates to snappier everyday use and better performance in games that rely on a few fast cores.
• Multi-Thread Performance: The 40.2% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core means the Ryzen handles video encoding, compilation, and other heavily threaded tasks much more efficiently.
• Power Efficiency: The Ryzen 3 3100 has a 65 W TDP compared to the Xeon's 80 W, achieving higher performance while drawing less power.
• Modern Platform Features: PCIe Gen 4 support and an unlocked multiplier give the Ryzen a clear edge in platform capabilities and overclocking potential.
• Memory Bandwidth: The Ryzen's 51.2 GB/s theoretical bandwidth is significantly higher than the Xeon's 34.1 GB/s, which benefits memory-intensive applications.

Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 Wins:

• ECC Memory Support: This is the Xeon's defining feature. It is the only one of the two that can run with Error-Correcting Code memory, a non-negotiable requirement for certain server and workstation environments where data integrity is paramount.
• Legacy Compatibility: The Xeon's support for both DDR3 and DDR4 memory gives it flexibility when reusing older components in a server build.
• Historical Market Segment: As a server/workstation part, the Xeon's design priorities were stability and reliability, which can be a consideration for users seeking a used, proven enterprise component for a non-performance-critical role.