AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE vs Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE and Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 are two very different processors that land surprisingly close in raw compute performance. The data shows a consistent, albeit narrow, victory for the AMD part across every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the Ryzen 3 3200GE scores 622 against the Xeon’s 617, a 0.8% lead. That same 0.8% margin appears again in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the AMD chip posts 2595 versus 2574, and again in Cinebench R23 multicore, with 6179 versus 6130. The single-core results tell a nearly identical story: the Ryzen wins R15 single-core with a score of 87 versus 87, a tie recorded as a 0% delta, then edges ahead in R20 single-core with 366 versus 363 and in R23 single-core with 872 versus 865. The pattern is unmistakable—the Ryzen 3 3200GE wins all six head-to-head matchups, though the largest margin is just 0.8%. These are not decisive victories; they are consistent, small advantages that point to a genuine performance parity between a 2019 desktop APU and a 2014 server chip. The average benchmark score reinforces this: the Ryzen sits at 1787, while the Xeon trails at 1773, a difference of roughly 0.8% that places both processors in the 41st and 42nd percentiles of all CPUs, respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head table lists six benchmark comparisons, and the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE wins every single one. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ryzen scores 622 against the Xeon’s 617, a delta of 0.8%. The single-core R15 result is a dead heat at 87 points each, officially recorded as a 0% difference, yet the winner column still goes to AMD. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore score favors the Ryzen at 2595 versus 2574, again by 0.8%, and the single-core test shows 366 versus 363, another 0.8% edge for AMD. Cinebench R23 multicore continues the trend: 6179 for the Ryzen, 6130 for the Xeon, a 0.8% margin. The R23 single-core test rounds out the sweep with 872 versus 865, once more a 0.8% advantage. What does this mean? The AMD chip is consistently ahead, but the margins are so thin—never exceeding 0.8%—that in real-world use these two processors would be indistinguishable in threaded and single-threaded workloads alike. The Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.50 GHz does not translate into a win; the Ryzen’s 4.00 GHz boost clock appears to compensate, and the AMD part’s newer architecture likely explains the slight edge. Notably, the Xeon has 8 threads to the Ryzen’s 4, yet the Ryzen still wins multicore tests. This suggests the Ryzen’s per-core efficiency and higher boost frequency more than offset the Xeon’s thread count advantage. The data does not show any test where the Xeon closes the gap, let alone takes the lead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE scores 1787 on average, while the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 scores 1773. This places the Ryzen in the 42nd percentile of all CPUs and the Xeon in the 41st.

Q: How many benchmark comparisons does each processor win?

A: The Ryzen 3 3200GE wins all six head-to-head comparisons. The Xeon E5-2637 v3 wins zero. The margins are consistently 0.8%, except for one tie in Cinebench R15 single-core.

Q: What is the difference in TDP between the two chips?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 has a TDP of 135 watts. The Xeon draws nearly four times the power budget.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-2637 v3 have more threads than the Ryzen 3 3200GE?

A: Yes, the Xeon supports 8 threads across its 4 cores, while the Ryzen supports 4 threads across its 4 cores. Despite this, the Ryzen wins all multicore benchmarks.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each processor?

A: The Ryzen 3 3200GE offers 46.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth via a dual-channel bus, while the Xeon E5-2637 v3 offers 68.3 GB/s via a quad-channel bus. The Xeon’s bandwidth advantage does not translate into a benchmark win.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE is listed as "Active" in production status, while the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 is marked as "End-of-life."

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE is the faster processor. It wins every head-to-head comparison, though the margins are all 0.8% or less. This is not a case of one chip dominating another; it is a case of one chip being marginally better across the board. The Ryzen achieves this with a 35-watt TDP, a 4-core/4-thread configuration, and a 4.00 GHz boost clock. The Xeon, by contrast, draws 135 watts, offers 4 cores and 8 threads, and has a 3.70 GHz boost clock. For a user choosing between these two, the data suggests the Ryzen is the better performer in Cinebench workloads, but the difference is so small that other factors—such as platform features, memory channels, or PCIe lanes—would likely decide the purchase. The Xeon does offer quad-channel memory and 40 PCIe lanes, which are absent from the Ryzen’s dual-channel, 16-lane setup. However, if pure CPU compute is the only criterion, the Ryzen 3 3200GE is the winner. The Xeon’s only advantage in the data is its higher base clock and larger shared L3 cache, but neither produces a benchmark victory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification listed. The Ryzen 3 3200GE has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon E5-2637 v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 3.30 GHz for the Ryzen and 3.50 GHz for the Xeon; boost clocks are 4.00 GHz and 3.70 GHz, respectively. TDP is a major split: 35 watts versus 135 watts. The Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. Cache configurations diverge as well: the Ryzen has 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 4 MB of shared L3; the Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 15 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the Ryzen is dual-channel with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon is quad-channel with 68.3 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ: the Ryzen has 16 lanes (Gen 3), and the Xeon has 40 lanes (Gen 3). The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Ryzen has an unlocked multiplier; the Xeon does not. The Ryzen is marked as Active production, while the Xeon is End-of-life. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $996; the Ryzen has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE is built on the Zen+ architecture, codenamed Picasso, using a 12 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It integrates 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, codenamed Haswell-EP, on a 22 nm process from Intel. It houses 2,600 million transistors on a larger 356 mm² die. The Ryzen’s smaller process node and higher transistor count suggest a denser, more modern design. Cache architecture differs: the Ryzen allocates 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, with 4 MB shared L3, while the Xeon allocates 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with a much larger 15 MB shared L3. The Xeon’s larger L3 cache is a notable architectural advantage, yet it does not yield a benchmark win. The Ryzen is from the 3000 series and represents the "Ryzen 3 (Zen+ (Picasso))" generation, while the Xeon is from the "Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP)" generation. Both support ECC memory, but the Ryzen includes an integrated GPU, which the Xeon lacks. The Ryzen is a desktop part; the Xeon is a server/workstation part. The Ryzen’s 12 nm process versus the Xeon’s 22 nm process is a significant generational gap, explaining the Ryzen’s efficiency and higher boost clock.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE wins in every compute benchmark recorded. It leads in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multicore and single-core, with margins of 0.8% or a tie. The Ryzen’s wins are consistent across all six tests, making it the clear choice for Cinebench-style rendering workloads. Its 35-watt TDP also means it fits into power-constrained systems where the Xeon’s 135-watt TDP would be prohibitive. The Ryzen’s integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics provide a display output without a separate GPU, which is a practical advantage for basic desktop use. The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3, despite losing every benchmark, has strengths outside the Cinebench suite. It offers quad-channel memory with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, which can benefit memory-intensive server workloads not captured in these tests. Its 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes support more expansion cards, storage controllers, or GPUs than the Ryzen’s 16 lanes. The Xeon’s 8 threads may also help in highly parallel workloads that scale beyond 4 threads, even though Cinebench shows the Ryzen holding its own. The Xeon’s larger 15 MB L3 cache could be advantageous for certain data-heavy applications. Finally, the Xeon is a server-grade part with a launch MSRP of $996, indicating a different market position than the Ryzen, which has no listed MSRP. In summary, the Ryzen wins on raw Cinebench performance and power efficiency; the Xeon wins on memory bandwidth, PCIe expansion, and thread count—though none of those wins appear in the head-to-head benchmark table.