AMD Ryzen 3 3300X vs Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data leaves no ambiguity about the performance hierarchy between these two processors. In the only two shared tests, the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X wins decisively on both fronts, with margins that are far too large to be dismissed as measurement noise.

The first shared test is Cinebench R15 multi-core. Here the Ryzen 3 3300X scores 1071 against the Xeon E5-2628 v3's 723. That is a 48.1% advantage for the AMD part. This result is particularly striking because the Xeon has twice the core count and twice the thread count: 8 cores and 16 threads versus 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite being outnumbered on paper, the Ryzen 3 3300X's newer architecture more than compensates for the core deficit. The Zen 2 design, with its 7 nm process and higher clocks, delivers a multi-threaded score that leaves the older Haswell-EP Xeon trailing by nearly half.

The second shared test is Cinebench R15 single-core, and here the gap is even more dramatic. The Ryzen 3 3300X scores 195, while the Xeon E5-2628 v3 manages only 102. That translates to a 91.2% advantage for the AMD chip, meaning the Ryzen 3 3300X is nearly twice as fast in single-threaded work. This is a massive margin, and it reflects the fundamental differences in clock speed and IPC. The Ryzen 3 3300X boosts to 4.30 GHz, whereas the Xeon is capped at 3.00 GHz. Combined with the generational leap from Haswell to Zen 2, the single-core result is a foregone conclusion.

Looking at the broader database context, the Ryzen 3 3300X holds an average benchmark score of 2148, which places it in the 47th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals, according to the database, are the Intel Core i5-10200H (2154, just 0.3% ahead), the Intel Core i7-5950HQ (2158, 0.4% ahead), the Intel Core i5-9400T (2136, 0.6% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 3 5300U (2135, 0.6% behind). This clustering shows that the Ryzen 3 3300X sits right in the middle of a tight pack of mid-range processors, with no significant advantage or disadvantage relative to its closest competitors.

The Xeon E5-2628 v3, by contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 2076, which lands it in the 46th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon W-2123 (2079, 0.1% ahead), the Intel Core i3-9350KF (2082, 0.3% ahead), the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 (2067, 0.5% behind), and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2544 (2086, 0.5% ahead). The Xeon is therefore slightly below the Ryzen 3 3300X in overall average score, by roughly 3.5% (2148 versus 2076). While that overall gap is modest, the head-to-head Cinebench results show that the Ryzen 3 3300X wins every shared test, and wins big.

The head-to-head table in the database records two wins for the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X and zero wins for the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3. There are no benchmark results where the Xeon comes out ahead in a direct comparison. The conclusion from the recorded data is straightforward: the Ryzen 3 3300X is the faster processor in every measured workload category that both chips share.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core score in Cinebench R15?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X scores 195, which is 91.2% higher than the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3's 102. This is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head data.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 win any benchmark against the Ryzen 3 3300X?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head benchmarks, and the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X wins both. The Xeon has zero wins in the shared test set.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X has an average benchmark score of 2148, while the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 averages 2076. The Ryzen 3 3300X is ahead by approximately 3.5%.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X has 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite this, the Ryzen 3 3300X still wins the multi-core Cinebench R15 test.

Q: What is the multi-core Cinebench R15 margin between the two?

A: The Ryzen 3 3300X scores 1071 versus the Xeon's 723, giving the AMD part a 48.1% lead in multi-core performance.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 boosts to 3.00 GHz. This 1.30 GHz difference contributes heavily to the single-core result.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most use cases: the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X. In every shared benchmark, it outperforms the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 by a substantial margin. The single-core advantage of 91.2% is particularly decisive, as it indicates that the Ryzen 3 3300X will feel significantly more responsive in everyday tasks and lightly threaded applications. Even in multi-core workloads, where the Xeon has twice the cores and threads, the Ryzen 3 3300X still leads by 48.1%. That is a remarkable result for a 4-core chip.

The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 does have one clear functional advantage: ECC memory support. The database lists ECC memory as true for the Xeon, while the Ryzen 3 3300X does not support ECC. For users who require error-correcting memory for data integrity, the Xeon is the only option of the two. Additionally, the Xeon supports quad-channel memory with a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, which is higher than the Ryzen 3 3300X's dual-channel 51.2 GB/s. However, the benchmark results show that this memory bandwidth advantage does not translate into a performance win in the recorded tests.

The market segments also differ: the Ryzen 3 3300X is a desktop part, while the Xeon E5-2628 v3 is a server/workstation part. The motherboard platforms are incompatible, as the Ryzen 3 3300X uses AMD Socket AM4 and the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The Xeon also has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, versus the Ryzen 3 3300X's 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. For users with many expansion cards, the Xeon offers more lanes, although the Ryzen 3 3300X's lanes are newer and faster.

The production status is another differentiator. The Ryzen 3 3300X is listed as active, while the Xeon E5-2628 v3 is end-of-life. This means the Ryzen 3 3300X is still a current product, whereas the Xeon is discontinued. The Ryzen 3 3300X also has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, while the Xeon's multiplier is locked.

For the vast majority of users, the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X is the correct choice. Its benchmark scores are superior in every measured category, it is on a modern platform, and it remains in production. The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 is only preferable in niche scenarios where ECC memory is a hard requirement and where the older Socket 2011-3 platform is already in place.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The base clocks are 3.80 GHz for the Ryzen 3 3300X and 2.50 GHz for the Xeon. The boost clocks are 4.30 GHz and 3.00 GHz, respectively. The TDP values are 65 W for the AMD part and 85 W for the Intel part.

The sockets are incompatible: the Ryzen 3 3300X uses AMD Socket AM4, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The memory support differs in channel count: the Ryzen 3 3300X is dual-channel, and the Xeon is quad-channel. The memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s for the Ryzen 3 3300X and 68.3 GB/s for the Xeon. ECC memory support is false for the AMD part and true for the Intel part.

PCIe support also differs. The Ryzen 3 3300X offers PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the Xeon offers PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes. The market segments are desktop versus server/workstation. The Ryzen 3 3300X has an unlocked multiplier, and the Xeon's multiplier is locked. The Ryzen 3 3300X is active in production, while the Xeon is end-of-life. The release dates differ as well: the Ryzen 3 3300X was released in 2020, and the Xeon was released in 2014. The launch MSRP of the Ryzen 3 3300X is $120; the Xeon has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is generational. The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X is built on the Zen 2 architecture with the Matisse codename, part of the Ryzen 3 generation. It uses a 7 nm process node from TSMC, with 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 is based on the Haswell architecture with the Haswell-EP codename, part of the Xeon E5 generation. It uses a 22 nm process node from Intel, with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die.

The cache layouts differ as well. The Ryzen 3 3300X has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The L2 cache per core is double on the AMD part, while the total L3 cache is larger on the Intel part.

The process node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 22 nm. This explains why the Ryzen 3 3300X achieves higher clocks at lower TDP. The foundries also differ, with TSMC manufacturing the AMD chip and Intel manufacturing its own Xeon. The transistor counts reflect the different design philosophies: the Ryzen 3 3300X packs more transistors into a much smaller die, while the Xeon spreads fewer transistors across a much larger die.

The memory controllers are also architecturally distinct. The Ryzen 3 3300X uses a dual-channel DDR4 controller with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon uses a quad-channel DDR4 controller with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon's ECC support is an architectural feature that the Ryzen 3 3300X lacks. Neither processor includes integrated graphics. The Ryzen 3 3300X has an unlocked multiplier, indicating that it is designed for overclocking, while the Xeon's locked multiplier is typical of server parts.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X wins in raw performance across every shared benchmark. It is the clear choice for single-threaded workloads, where its 91.2% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core makes it nearly twice as fast as the Xeon. This benefits general desktop use, web browsing, office applications, and any software that relies heavily on one or two cores. The Ryzen 3 3300X also wins in multi-threaded workloads, as shown by its 48.1% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core, despite having half the cores and threads. For users running moderately parallel tasks such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or software compilation, the Ryzen 3 3300X delivers better results.

The Ryzen 3 3300X also wins on modern platform features. Its PCIe Gen 4 support provides double the bandwidth per lane compared to the Xeon's PCIe Gen 3, which matters for fast NVMe storage and current-generation graphics cards. The 7 nm process node gives it a significant efficiency advantage: it consumes 65 W TDP versus the Xeon's 85 W, while delivering far higher performance. The Ryzen 3 3300X is also an active product with an unlocked multiplier, making it a viable choice for overclocking and future upgrades within the AM4 platform.

The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 wins in specific server-oriented scenarios. Its ECC memory support is the standout feature, making it suitable for workloads where data corruption is unacceptable, such as database servers, financial calculations, or long-running scientific computations. The Xeon's quad-channel memory architecture with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth provides higher theoretical memory throughput than the Ryzen 3 3300X's dual-channel setup, which can benefit memory-intensive server workloads. The 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes allow for more expansion cards, such as multiple network adapters, RAID controllers, or GPUs, in a single system.

The Xeon also wins on core count, offering 8 cores and 16 threads versus the Ryzen 3 3300X's 4 cores and 8 threads. In heavily parallel server workloads that scale well beyond the 8 threads of the Ryzen 3 3300X, the Xeon's additional cores could provide an advantage, although the recorded benchmarks do not show this benefiting the Xeon in the tested Cinebench R15 multi-core workload. The Xeon's 20 MB of shared L3 cache is larger than the Ryzen 3 3300X's 16 MB, which may help in certain cache-sensitive workloads.

For most desktop users, the choice is clear: the Ryzen 3 3300X wins on performance, efficiency, and platform modernity. For users with a specific ECC requirement or an existing Socket 2011-3 server platform, the Xeon E5-2628 v3 remains a functional option, but the benchmark data shows it is substantially slower in both single-core and multi-core performance.