AMD Ryzen 3 3100 vs Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 and AMD Ryzen 3 3100 are both 4-core, 8-thread processors, yet the benchmark data reveals starkly different performance profiles. The Ryzen 3 3100, a desktop part built on Zen 2, decisively outpaces the older mobile-derived Xeon in the available head-to-head tests, while the Xeon counters with features the Ryzen lacks, including integrated graphics and ECC memory support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous, with the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 winning both recorded comparisons by substantial margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen scores 991 against the Xeon’s 720, a delta of -27.3% from the perspective of the Xeon, meaning the Ryzen is roughly 37.6% faster in this threaded workload. The single-core gap is even wider: the Ryzen posts 178 points versus the Xeon’s 101, a -43.3% delta, which translates to the Ryzen being about 76.2% faster in single-threaded performance. These are not marginal wins; they indicate a generational leap in per-core efficiency and clock-for-clock capability.

Looking beyond the head-to-head table, the broader benchmark sets reinforce this trend. The Ryzen 3 3100’s Cinebench R15 single-core score of 178 is nearly double the Xeon’s 101, and its multi-core score of 991 exceeds the Xeon’s 720 by over a third. In Cinebench R20, the Xeon manages 3001 multi-core and 423 single-core, but the Ryzen’s data does not include R20 results. However, the Ryzen’s Geekbench scores of 4898 multi-core and 1395 single-core suggest a similar pattern of dominance, as does its 3DMark performance, which shows scaling from 660 single-thread to 3001 at 16 threads. The Xeon’s highest single-core score in the pack is 1008 in Cinebench R23, while its R23 multi-core is 7146; the Ryzen lacks R23 data, but given the R15 deltas, the outcome would likely mirror the existing pattern.

The average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story. The Xeon’s average is 2067, while the Ryzen’s is 2055, a difference of only 0.6%. This near-parity in averages, despite the lopsided head-to-head, suggests that the Xeon’s performance is more consistent across a wider range of tests, or that the benchmark suites used for each CPU differ in composition. The Xeon’s percentile rank is 46th among all CPUs, and the Ryzen also sits at the 46th percentile, indicating that despite their differences, both land in the same overall performance tier when averaged across all recorded benchmarks. The nearest rivals for each CPU further contextualize this: the Xeon’s closest competitors include the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G (avg score 2059, delta 0.4%) and the Intel Core i7-8705G (avg score 2058, delta 0.5%), while the Ryzen 3 3100’s nearest rivals include the same Core i7-8705G (delta -0.1%) and the Ryzen 5 3400G (delta -0.2%). This clustering suggests that in aggregate, neither CPU is dramatically better than the other across all possible workloads.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most users: the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 is the superior processor for raw compute performance. Its wins in both Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core are decisive, with the single-core advantage being particularly pronounced at 43.3% faster. Benchmark results indicate that the Ryzen’s Zen 2 architecture delivers roughly 76% higher single-thread performance than the Xeon’s Skylake silicon in the tested workload, a gap that would be felt in everyday tasks, gaming, and lightly threaded applications. The Ryzen also comes with a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 3.50 GHz, though both boost to 3.90 GHz.

However, the Xeon E3-1585 v5 is not without rationale for specific buyers. Its integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580 means it can output video without a discrete GPU, a capability the Ryzen 3 3100 completely lacks, as it has no integrated graphics. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the Ryzen does not, making it suitable for error-correcting workloads typical of servers or workstations. Its market segment is listed as Server/Workstation, whereas the Ryzen is firmly a Desktop part. For a user building a system that requires ECC RAM or needs a CPU with a built-in GPU, the Xeon is the only choice between these two, despite its performance deficit. For anyone prioritizing speed, the Ryzen 3 3100 wins without qualification.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing eras. The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 is built on a 14 nm process at Intel’s foundry, using the Skylake architecture (specifically Skylake-H). It packs 2,300 million transistors into a 171 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen 3 3100, in contrast, is fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm node using the Zen 2 architecture (codename Matisse), housing 3,800 million transistors in a much smaller 74 mm² die. This process advantage is a key factor behind the Ryzen’s superior performance per clock and efficiency.

Cache configurations differ substantially. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core, but the Ryzen’s L2 is 512 KB per core versus the Xeon’s 256 KB per core. More critically, the Ryzen has 16 MB of shared L3 cache, double the Xeon’s 8 MB. Memory bandwidth also favors the Ryzen: it supports DDR4 with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while the Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 at 34.1 GB/s, a 50% advantage for the AMD part. The Ryzen also features PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

Other differences include the socket: the Xeon uses Intel BGA 1440, a soldered mobile socket, while the Ryzen uses the standard desktop AMD Socket AM4. The Ryzen has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the Xeon is locked. The Xeon’s integrated graphics (Iris Pro Graphics P580) and ECC support are unique to it, while the Ryzen offers neither. The release dates are separated by nearly four years: the Xeon launched on 2016-05-30, and the Ryzen on 2020-04-23. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the Ryzen remains active in production.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 is significantly faster, scoring 178 in Cinebench R15 single-core versus the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5’s 101, a delta of -43.3% from the Xeon’s perspective.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it features Iris Pro Graphics P580, whereas the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: Can the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 be overclocked?

A: Yes, its multiplier is unlocked, while the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 has a locked multiplier and cannot be overclocked.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 supports ECC memory; the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 does not.

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

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 is built on Intel’s 14 nm process, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 uses TSMC’s 7 nm process, leading to a smaller die size of 74 mm² for the Ryzen versus 171 mm² for the Xeon.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 has an average benchmark score of 2067, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 averages 2055, a difference of only 0.6% in favor of the Xeon.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 wins in every benchmark where both CPUs have directly comparable scores. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 991 beats the Xeon’s 720, and its single-core score of 178 crushes the Xeon’s 101. The Ryzen’s Geekbench scores (4898 multi-core, 1395 single-core) and 3DMark results (ranging from 660 single-thread to 3001 at 16 threads) further demonstrate its strength in both lightly threaded and heavily threaded applications. For gaming, content creation, or any task that benefits from high single-thread speed or modern multi-core efficiency, the Ryzen 3 3100 is the clear winner from the data.

The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5’s wins are not in raw performance but in feature set and platform suitability. It is the only one of the two with integrated graphics, making it viable for systems without a discrete GPU. It is also the only one supporting ECC memory, which is crucial for error-sensitive workloads in servers or workstations. Its memory support includes both DDR3 and DDR4, offering flexibility in system builds, whereas the Ryzen only supports DDR4. The Xeon’s market segment is Server/Workstation, while the Ryzen is Desktop, indicating the Xeon is designed for reliability and stability over speed. In scenarios where ECC is mandatory or a discrete GPU is absent, the Xeon is the appropriate pick despite its lower benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every specification category except cores, threads, base clock proximity, boost clock, TDP, and L1 cache size. Both have 4 cores and 8 threads, and both have a TDP of 65 watts. The Xeon’s base clock is 3.50 GHz versus the Ryzen’s 3.60 GHz, but both boost to 3.90 GHz. L1 cache is identical at 64 KB per core.

Beyond these, the differences are stark. The Xeon uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket, while the Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4. The Xeon is built on Intel’s 14 nm process with 2,300 million transistors on a 171 mm² die, while the Ryzen uses TSMC’s 7 nm process with 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. L2 cache is 256 KB per core on the Xeon versus 512 KB per core on the Ryzen, and L3 cache is 8 MB shared versus 16 MB shared, respectively. Memory bandwidth is 34.1 GB/s for the Xeon (supporting DDR3 and DDR4) versus 51.2 GB/s for the Ryzen (DDR4 only). The Xeon supports ECC memory, the Ryzen does not. PCIe generation is Gen 3 for the Xeon and Gen 4 for the Ryzen, both with 16 CPU lanes. The Xeon has Iris Pro Graphics P580, the Ryzen has no integrated graphics. The Xeon’s multiplier is locked, the Ryzen’s is unlocked. The Xeon targets Server/Workstation and is end-of-life, while the Ryzen targets Desktop and is active. The Xeon’s launch MSRP was $556, and it was released on 2016-05-30; the Ryzen’s launch MSRP was $99, released on 2020-04-23.