CPU Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE and Intel Xeon E-2224 are both 4-core, 4-thread processors, but they target different corners of the market. The data shows a consistent, albeit narrow, performance advantage for the AMD part across every Cinebench iteration, while the Intel chip counters with a higher boost clock and a larger L3 cache. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and use-case implications derived exclusively from the provided data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably one-sided in favor of the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD chip wins, with margins ranging from 1.2% to 1.4%. This is a narrow but entirely uniform victory.

In the multi-core tests, the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE leads by a score of 622 to 614 in Cinebench R15, a 1.3% advantage. The gap widens slightly to 1.4% in Cinebench R20, where AMD scores 2595 against Intel's 2559. The trend continues in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with AMD posting 6179 versus Intel's 6093, again a 1.4% delta. These results indicate that despite having the same core and thread count, the AMD chip extracts slightly more throughput in heavily threaded workloads.

The single-core results tell a similar story. In Cinebench R15 single-core, AMD wins 87 to 86, a 1.2% margin. The single-core advantage grows to 1.4% in both Cinebench R20 (366 vs 361) and Cinebench R23 (872 vs 860). This is notable because the Intel Xeon E-2224 has a higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz compared to the AMD's 4.00 GHz. The data suggests that the AMD architecture is more efficient per clock cycle, enough to overcome the 600 MHz boost clock disadvantage.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE holds an average benchmark score of 1787, placing it in the 42nd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Xeon E-2224 scores 1762 on average, landing in the 41st percentile. The nearest rivals for the AMD chip include the AMD Opteron 6281 (avg score 1789, -0.1% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 (avg score 1778, 0.5% delta). For the Intel chip, its closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE (avg score 1766, -0.2% delta) and the Intel Core i5-5675C (avg score 1759, 0.2% delta). These comparisons show both chips sitting in a tightly packed performance tier, with the AMD part holding a slight edge over its direct rival.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE wins in every benchmark category recorded in the data. There is no single test where the Intel Xeon E-2224 comes out ahead. Therefore, the "win" for AMD is universal across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 workloads, both single-core and multi-core.

The Intel Xeon E-2224's advantages lie outside of raw Cinebench scores. It features a higher base clock of 3.40 GHz versus 3.30 GHz and a significantly higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus 4.00 GHz. This suggests that in specific, short-duration, lightly threaded tasks that are highly sensitive to clock speed and not captured by these particular benchmarks, the Intel chip could exhibit better responsiveness. However, the benchmark data does not show this advantage materializing in Cinebench.

Another area where Intel claims a theoretical win is cache size. The Xeon E-2224 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 4 MB shared L3 on the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE. Larger caches can improve performance in data-intensive workloads that repeatedly access the same information. Yet, the Cinebench results show the AMD chip performing better despite this deficit, indicating that the test workloads do not favor the larger cache.

For integrated graphics, the AMD chip packs Radeon Vega 8, while the Intel chip has UHD Graphics P630. The data does not provide any benchmark scores for these iGPUs, so a quantitative comparison is impossible. The AMD solution is generally considered more capable for gaming, but this is not supported by any numbers in the fact pack. The Intel part, being a server/workstation chip, likely prioritizes stability and display output over graphics performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE uses the Zen+ architecture, codenamed Picasso, and is fabricated on a 12 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It integrates 4,940 million transistors on a die size of 210 mm². In contrast, the Intel Xeon E-2224 uses the Coffee Lake architecture, codenamed Coffee Lake-S WS, and is built on Intel's 14 nm process. Its die size is significantly smaller at 126 mm², though the transistor count is not listed in the data.

Cache layouts differ notably. The AMD chip has a larger L1 cache at 96 KB per core and a larger L2 cache at 512 KB per core. However, the Intel chip has double the L3 cache, with 8 MB shared versus 4 MB shared on the AMD. This creates an interesting balance: AMD favors faster access to lower-level caches, while Intel provides a larger pool of shared, higher-level cache.

Both CPUs support DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s, while the Intel Xeon E-2224 is rated at 42.7 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is a critical feature for the Xeon's server/workstation market segment and a bonus for the AMD desktop part.

PCIe support is identical: both offer Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The AMD chip is socketed on AMD Socket AM4, while the Intel chip uses Intel Socket 1151. The AMD processor has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, whereas the Intel Xeon is locked.

The market positioning is clear. The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE is classified as a Desktop processor with a 35W TDP, making it highly power-efficient. It was released on 2019-07-06 and remains in active production. The Intel Xeon E-2224 is a Server/Workstation chip with a 71W TDP, released on 2019-05-28 and is now end-of-life. The AMD part is the newer release by over a month and is still being manufactured.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2224 has a higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz compared to 4.00 GHz on the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE outperform the Intel Xeon E-2224 in all benchmarks?

A: Yes, the AMD chip wins all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single and multi-core), with margins between 1.2% and 1.4%.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE has a TDP of 35W, while the Intel Xeon E-2224 has a TDP of 71W.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2224 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, which is double the 4 MB shared L3 cache found on the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE.

Q: Are both processors compatible with ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE and the Intel Xeon E-2224 support ECC memory.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE is listed as Active, while the Intel Xeon E-2224 is listed as End-of-life.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE is the superior performer. It wins every single Cinebench test against the Intel Xeon E-2224, achieving a higher average benchmark score (1787 versus 1762) and a higher percentile ranking (42nd versus 41st). For any workload represented by Cinebench, the AMD chip is the clear choice.

The Intel Xeon E-2224 offers a higher boost clock and double the L3 cache, but these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. Its 71W TDP is more than double the AMD's 35W, making it significantly less power-efficient. Furthermore, the Intel chip is end-of-life, while the AMD part is still in active production.

For a system builder prioritizing raw Cinebench performance and power efficiency, the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE is the data-backed winner. The Intel Xeon E-2224, with its server/workstation classification and higher clock speeds, might be considered for specific server roles where those attributes are valued over the benchmark results shown here. However, the data shows a clear performance advantage for AMD. The Xeon's launch MSRP was $193, but its end-of-life status and lack of benchmark wins make it a difficult recommendation against the actively produced, more efficient, and faster AMD alternative.