AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 and the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE are both 4-core desktop processors, yet they represent fundamentally different design philosophies and market eras. The data shows the Xeon E5-1620 v4 winning all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but by margins so slim—never exceeding 1.1%—that the Ryzen 3 3200GE remains a highly competitive alternative. Despite the Intel chip’s consistent victory, this is a contest defined by architectural extremes: a 140W server-derived platform with quad-channel memory against a 35W APU with integrated graphics, each built for entirely different system priorities.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but the advantage is purely nominal. In multi-core tests, the Xeon leads by 0.8% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, posting scores of 627, 2616, and 6230 respectively against the Ryzen’s 622, 2595, and 6179. The single-core results tell the same story: the Xeon edges ahead by 1.1% in Cinebench R15 (88 vs 87) and by 0.8% in both R20 (369 vs 366) and R23 (879 vs 872). These deltas are within run-to-run variance for most workloads, meaning the Xeon’s "win" is statistical noise rather than a functional advantage.

The Ryzen 3 3200GE’s wins are not in raw performance but in platform characteristics. It is the only chip here with integrated graphics—Radeon Vega 8—enabling a system to operate without a discrete GPU. The Ryzen also has a 35W TDP compared to the Xeon’s 140W, making it dramatically more power-efficient. Its unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, a feature the Xeon lacks. For workloads that depend on memory bandwidth, however, the Xeon’s quad-channel DDR4 interface delivers 76.8 GB/s versus the Ryzen’s dual-channel 46.9 GB/s, a 64% bandwidth advantage that matters in memory-intensive server-style tasks even if Cinebench does not reflect it.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two parts is wide. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 is built on Intel’s 14 nm Broadwell-EP process, manufactured in-house by Intel, with 3,400 million transistors on a 246 mm² die. It supports 4 cores and 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost of 3.80 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 10 MB L3. It uses Intel Socket 2011-3, ships as an end-of-life product from June 2016, and was launched at an MSRP of $294.

The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE, by contrast, is a Zen+ architecture part codenamed Picasso, fabricated on GlobalFoundries’ 12 nm process. It packs 4,940 million transistors into a 210 mm² die—more transistors in a smaller area than the Xeon. It offers 4 cores and 4 threads (no SMT), with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz. Its caches are smaller: 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and just 4 MB shared L3. The Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4, supports DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, includes the Radeon Vega 8 integrated GPU, and is actively produced, having launched in July 2019. Both support ECC memory, but the Ryzen’s PCIe implementation is Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while the Xeon offers Gen 3 with 40 lanes—a major difference for expansion capacity.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows that for pure CPU compute, the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 is technically faster, but its margins over the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE are negligible: 0.8% in multi-core and 0.8-1.1% in single-core across all Cinebench versions. The Xeon’s 8 threads give it a theoretical advantage in heavily threaded workloads, yet the Ryzen’s higher 4.00 GHz boost clock nearly cancels that out in practice. Both chips sit at the 42nd percentile of all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are 1802 for the Xeon and 1787 for the Ryzen—a 0.8% gap that mirrors the head-to-head results.

The choice comes down to platform needs, not speed. If the system requires massive memory bandwidth, quad-channel support, 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, or enterprise-grade expansion, the Xeon E5-1620 v4 is the only option. If the priority is low power consumption, integrated graphics, overclocking capability, or a modern active platform, the Ryzen 3 3200GE is clearly superior. For a typical desktop user, the Ryzen’s 35W TDP and Vega 8 GPU make it far more practical, while the Xeon’s 140W TDP and lack of iGPU demand a discrete graphics card and a server-class motherboard. The data does not support choosing the Xeon for speed alone—its wins are too small to matter—but it remains relevant for specific workstation configurations.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 scores 879 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE scores 872, giving the Xeon a 0.8% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 3 3200GE features Radeon Vega 8 integrated graphics, whereas the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two CPUs?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE uses dual-channel DDR4 with 46.9 GB/s, a difference of 29.9 GB/s in the Xeon’s favor.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE has an unlocked multiplier, but the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 is locked.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v4 has an average benchmark score of 1802, and the Ryzen 3 3200GE scores 1787, a 0.8% difference that places both in the 42nd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test gives the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 a 627 to 622 win over the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE, a 0.8% margin. This is the smallest possible edge, just five points, and reflects the Xeon’s 8 threads versus the Ryzen’s 4 threads. However, the Ryzen’s higher boost clock compensates almost entirely for its lack of SMT, keeping the gap negligible.

In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 88 against the Ryzen’s 87, a 1.1% lead—the largest single margin in the entire comparison. This is the only test where the Xeon exceeds a 0.8% delta, and even then, it is a single point. The Ryzen’s 4.00 GHz boost clock is higher than the Xeon’s 3.80 GHz, but the Xeon’s older Broadwell architecture still manages to edge out a win.

Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon posts 2616 versus the Ryzen’s 2595, again a 0.8% difference. The 21-point gap is consistent with the R15 result, suggesting that multi-threaded scaling is nearly identical between the two chips. The Ryzen’s lack of SMT hurts it in this workload, but only marginally.

Cinebench R20 single-core shows the Xeon at 369 and the Ryzen at 366, a three-point, 0.8% margin. The pattern holds: the Xeon wins, but the performance is functionally equivalent for any real-world single-threaded task. The delta is so small that a background process could easily flip the result.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 6230 against the Ryzen’s 6179, a 51-point, 0.8% advantage. This is the largest absolute point gap of any test, but the percentage remains identical to the other multi-core results, reinforcing that the two CPUs scale at the same rate under load.

Finally, Cinebench R23 single-core gives the Xeon 879 and the Ryzen 872, a 7-point, 0.8% win. Across all six benchmarks, the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins decisively in name but insignificantly in practice. The data shows a processor that is technically faster in every Cinebench iteration, yet the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE matches it closely enough that architectural and platform features—not raw scores—should determine the purchase decision.