AMD Ryzen 3 3100 vs Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 Comparison

# Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 vs AMD Ryzen 3 3100

The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 and AMD Ryzen 3 3100 occupy opposite ends of the CPU spectrum: the Xeon is an eight-core, sixteen-thread server/workstation part built on Intel's 22 nm Haswell-EP architecture and released in September 2014, while the Ryzen 3 3100 is a four-core, eight-thread desktop chip using AMD's 7 nm Zen 2 (Matisse) design, launched in April 2020. Both chips land at the 46th percentile among all CPUs in the benchmark database, and their average benchmark scores are close — 2076 for the Xeon versus 2055 for the Ryzen — yet the underlying performance profiles diverge sharply across the two Cinebench tests available in the head-to-head comparison, with the Ryzen winning both. The Xeon targets multi-threaded server workloads with its higher core count and quad-channel memory, while the Ryzen delivers far superior single-thread performance and lower power consumption, making the choice between them a matter of workload, not raw score.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 wins every head-to-head benchmark recorded in the data, but the margins reveal where each chip has a legitimate claim. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen scores 991 against the Xeon's 723, a 27% advantage. That is a decisive win for a chip with half the cores and half the threads, demonstrating that Zen 2's per-core efficiency utterly overwhelms the older Haswell design's core-count advantage in this test. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ryzen scores 178 versus the Xeon's 102, a 42.7% lead — an even larger gap that reflects the massive generational improvement in instructions per clock (IPC) and clock speed between 2014 and 2020. The Ryzen runs at 3.60 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost, while the Xeon is locked to 2.50 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost, so the single-thread delta is compounded by both architectural and frequency differences.

However, the Xeon's strength lies outside the measured benchmarks. With eight cores and sixteen threads versus the Ryzen's four and eight, the Xeon would naturally scale better in heavily parallel workloads that exceed the eight-thread limit of the Ryzen's 3DMark runs (the Ryzen scores 3001 in 16-thread 3DMark, 2972 in 8-thread, and 2970 in max-thread, showing it saturates beyond eight threads). The Xeon also supports ECC memory and quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the Ryzen's non-ECC dual-channel 51.2 GB/s, making the Xeon the choice for memory-bound server tasks like database hosting or virtualization. The Ryzen, by contrast, wins on power: 65 W TDP versus 85 W, plus a smaller 74 mm² die on 7 nm versus 356 mm² on 22 nm, meaning it delivers more performance per watt and per square millimeter of silicon.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies separated by nearly six years of semiconductor advancement. The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm process at Intel's foundry, packing 2,600 million transistors into a 356 mm² die. It features 8 cores and 16 threads with a 2.50 GHz base clock and 3.00 GHz boost, plus 20 MB of shared L3 cache. Each core gets 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 cache. The memory subsystem is quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s peak bandwidth, and the chip supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability. It connects via PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only) on the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform. The Xeon is a server/workstation part, is end-of-life, and has a locked multiplier, meaning no overclocking.

The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 uses the Zen 2 (Matisse) architecture on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 3,800 million transistors in a much smaller 74 mm² die. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, running at 3.60 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. Cache configuration differs: 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core (double the Xeon's per-core L2), and 16 MB shared L3. Memory support is dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC is not supported. The Ryzen uses PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only) on the AMD Socket AM4 platform. It is an active desktop product with an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The Ryzen's transistor count is higher despite fewer cores, reflecting the denser 7 nm process and the more complex Zen 2 core design with its chiplet architecture. The Xeon's larger die and older process mean higher power draw per core, while the Ryzen's smaller die and newer process enable higher clocks at lower TDP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 is the superior processor for single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads, winning Cinebench R15 single-core by 42.7% and multi-core by 27% despite having half the cores of the Xeon. Its higher clock speeds (3.90 GHz boost versus 3.00 GHz) and modern Zen 2 architecture make it the better choice for everyday desktop use, gaming, and applications that rely on a few fast cores. The Ryzen also consumes less power (65 W TDP versus 85 W) and offers an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, which the Xeon lacks.

The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 remains relevant only for specific server scenarios. Its eight cores and sixteen threads, combined with ECC memory support and quad-channel bandwidth (68.3 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s), make it the safer pick for memory-intensive server tasks where error correction is non-negotiable and where workloads scale beyond eight threads. The Xeon's 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes also exceed the Ryzen's 16 Gen 4 lanes, which matters for multi-GPU or high-expansion server builds. However, the Xeon is end-of-life, released in 2014, and its single-core Cinebench score of 102 is less than a third of the Ryzen's 178 — a massive deficit that will hurt in any latency-sensitive workload. For most users, the Ryzen 3 3100 is the clear winner; for specialized server deployments requiring ECC and massive memory bandwidth, the Xeon's feature set justifies its existence.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite this, the Ryzen wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 27% (991 vs 723).

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The Ryzen 3 3100 scores 178 in Cinebench R15 single-core, which is 42.7% higher than the Xeon's 102. This is the largest performance gap between the two chips in any recorded benchmark.

Q: Do these CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 supports ECC memory with quad-channel DDR4 and 68.3 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 does not support ECC and uses dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which CPU is more power-efficient?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 has a 65 W TDP, lower than the Xeon's 85 W TDP. The Ryzen also uses a 7 nm process (74 mm² die) versus the Xeon's 22 nm process (356 mm² die), making it significantly more efficient per watt.

Q: Can either CPU be overclocked?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 has an unlocked multiplier, so it can be overclocked. The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 has a locked multiplier and cannot be overclocked.

Q: Which processor has newer PCIe support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon offers more lanes, but the Ryzen has a newer generation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains two Cinebench R15 results, and both go to the AMD Ryzen 3 3100. The multi-core test shows the Ryzen scoring 991 versus the Xeon's 723, a delta of -27% (negative indicating the Xeon is behind). This is the smaller of the two gaps, yet it is still substantial considering the Xeon has twice the cores and threads. A 27% multi-core deficit for the Xeon means the Ryzen's per-thread efficiency is so high that it overcomes a 2x core-count disadvantage. The Ryzen's 3.60 GHz base clock and 3.90 GHz boost, combined with Zen 2's superior IPC, allow each of its four cores to outpace the Xeon's eight cores by a wide margin in this render workload.

The single-core test is even more lopsided. The Ryzen scores 178 against the Xeon's 102, a 42.7% delta. This is a massive gap that highlights the generational chasm between Haswell (2014) and Zen 2 (2020). The Xeon's 3.00 GHz boost clock is 0.90 GHz lower than the Ryzen's 3.90 GHz boost, and the Haswell core design delivers far fewer instructions per clock than Zen 2. In practical terms, this means the Xeon will feel sluggish in any application that depends on single-threaded performance — web browsing, office productivity, legacy software, and many games. The Ryzen's 42.7% lead in single-core is the kind of margin that separates a usable desktop experience from a frustratingly slow one.

Looking at the broader benchmark data, the Ryzen also has results from 3DMark and Geekbench that the Xeon lacks, though these are not head-to-head comparisons. The Ryzen scores 660 in 3DMark single-thread, 1267 in 2-thread, 2214 in 4-thread, 2972 in 8-thread, and 3001 in 16-thread, showing near-linear scaling up to 8 threads and then saturation. In Geekbench, it scores 1395 single-core and 4898 multi-core. These numbers reinforce the profile: the Ryzen is a chip that excels in low-thread-count scenarios and holds its own up to 8 threads, but it has no headroom beyond that. The Xeon, by contrast, has 16 threads available, so in a hypothetical 16-thread test it would likely close or reverse the gap — but that test is not in the data, and the Xeon's single-core disadvantage would still hurt in mixed workloads. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the Xeon averages 2076, the Ryzen 2055, a difference of about 1%, but the Ryzen achieves that parity with half the cores and 23% less power draw. The nearest rivals for each chip cluster around the same average score — the Xeon's closest competitor is the Intel Xeon W-2123 at 2079 (-0.1% delta), while the Ryzen's is the Intel Core i7-8705G at 2058 (-0.1% delta) — indicating both chips sit in a crowded mid-pack tier, though the Ryzen offers the modern feature set and upgrade path that the end-of-life Xeon cannot match.