AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the database?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins all six recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests, covering R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core workloads. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 does not win any of the six.

Q: How large are the performance differences between the two?

A: The differences are narrow. The Intel chip leads by 1.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 1.5% in R15 single-core, 1.2% in R20 multi-core, 1.4% in R20 single-core, 1.3% in R23 multi-core, and 1.2% in R23 single-core. None of these margins exceed 1.5%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each part?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 has an average benchmark score of 1396, while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 sits at 1379. The Intel part also ranks at the 37th percentile among all CPUs, versus the 36th percentile for the AMD chip.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 have ECC memory support. However, the Intel chip uses DDR3 memory with dual-channel bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, while the AMD chip uses DDR4 memory with a recorded bus bandwidth of 4256 MB/s.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: Both have 4 physical cores. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 supports 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 has 4 threads total, meaning no simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 overclockable?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 does not have an unlocked multiplier, so it is locked for overclocking.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, though narrow, victory for the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3. It wins every recorded benchmark, and its average benchmark score of 1396 is 1.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200’s 1379. The Intel chip also holds a slightly better percentile ranking at 37 versus 36.

For builders who prioritize the lowest power draw, the Intel part is the obvious pick. Its TDP is 25 watts versus 65 watts for the AMD chip, a substantial difference that matters in compact or always-on systems. The Xeon also offers 8 threads, which helps in lightly threaded multitasking and productivity workloads, even if the per-core clock speeds are lower.

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 is not without merit. It has a higher base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, compared to the Xeon’s 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. It is also a current, active production part on the AM4 platform, while the Xeon is end-of-life. The unlocked multiplier makes it more flexible for enthusiasts who want to tune clocks, and it uses DDR4 memory, which is more modern and widely available.

The verdict: if the workload is power-sensitive, multi-threaded, or server-oriented, the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins on efficiency and thread count. If the user wants a modern, overclockable desktop chip with higher stock clocks and doesn’t mind the higher TDP, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 is the practical choice. Benchmark data alone favors Intel, but the AMD part wins on platform longevity and adjustability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records six direct comparisons across three Cinebench versions. In every single test, the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 posts the higher score, but the margins are consistently small.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 486 against the Ryzen’s 480, a 1.3% lead. The single-core test is closer: 68 versus 67, a 1.5% edge for Intel. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 2027 for Intel versus 2002 for AMD, a 1.2% delta, and the single-core result is 286 versus 282, a 1.4% lead. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 4827 for Intel versus 4767 for AMD, a 1.3% difference, and the single-core score is 681 versus 673, a 1.2% gap.

The pattern is uniform: Intel wins by roughly 1.2% to 1.5% across all tests. There is no workload where the AMD chip overtakes the Intel chip, but there is also no workload where Intel dominates by a meaningful margin. The Xeon’s advantage likely comes from its 8 threads, which help in multi-core tests, and its architecture efficiency in single-threaded tasks. The Ryzen’s higher clocks (3.10 GHz base, 3.40 GHz boost) are not enough to overcome the thread deficit in multi-core tests, and they do not translate into a single-core win either.

For practical purposes, the benchmark results indicate that these two CPUs are effectively interchangeable in raw performance for most applications. A 1.2% to 1.5% delta is within run-to-run variation in many real-world workloads. The recorded data, however, gives the win to Intel across the board.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification areas, even though they share the same core count and L3 cache size.

The most striking difference is TDP. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 has a TDP of 25 watts, while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 has a TDP of 65 watts. This is a 40-watt gap, which makes the Xeon dramatically more efficient on paper.

Thread counts also differ: the Xeon has 8 threads, the Ryzen has 4. Clock speeds favor AMD: the Ryzen’s base clock is 3.10 GHz and boost is 3.40 GHz, versus the Xeon’s 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The Xeon has lower clocks but more threads.

Memory support differs as well. The Xeon uses DDR3 with dual-channel bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The Ryzen uses DDR4 with a recorded bus bandwidth of 4256 MB/s. Both support ECC memory.

Socket and platform differ entirely. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1150, while the AMD part uses AMD Socket AM4. The Xeon is a Server/Workstation segment part, whereas the Ryzen is a Desktop segment part. The Xeon is end-of-life, with a release date of 2014-05-10, and its launch MSRP was $278. The Ryzen is active, released on 2017-06-28, with no launch MSRP recorded.

The Xeon has a locked multiplier; the Ryzen has an unlocked multiplier. Both have PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Neither has integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 is built on the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-WS codename, using a 22 nm process from Intel’s own foundry. It packs 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. Its cache layout is 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3.

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 is based on the Zen architecture, codename Zen (Summit Ridge), using a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It has 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. Its cache is 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3.

The architectural differences are substantial. Intel’s 22 nm node is older, but the Haswell design is efficient enough to deliver competitive performance at a very low 25 W TDP. AMD’s Zen uses a larger die and more transistors, which reflects a more complex design with higher core clocks, but it also draws more power at 65 W.

The L1 and L2 caches are larger per core on the AMD chip: 96 KB versus 64 KB for L1, and 512 KB versus 256 KB for L2. The L3 cache is identical at 8 MB shared. This gives the Ryzen a potential latency advantage in cache-heavy workloads, though the benchmark data does not show it overcoming Intel’s thread advantage.

The Xeon is a server-class Haswell part, which explains its low TDP and ECC support. The Ryzen is a desktop Zen part with an unlocked multiplier, aimed at mainstream builders. The generation gap (Haswell from 2014 versus Zen from 2017) shows up in process node and transistor count, but not in benchmark scores, which remain very close.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins in every recorded benchmark, so on pure performance, it takes the lead across all Cinebench tests. Its 8 threads give it a structural advantage in multi-threaded rendering and compilation tasks, as seen in the multi-core scores of 486, 2027, and 4827 versus the Ryzen’s 480, 2002, and 4767. The single-core wins (68 versus 67, 286 versus 282, 681 versus 673) are smaller but still favor Intel.

Beyond benchmarks, the Xeon wins in power efficiency. Its 25 W TDP is less than half of the Ryzen’s 65 W. For a server, NAS, or low-power workstation build, this is a decisive advantage. It also supports ECC memory, making it suitable for error-sensitive workloads. The Xeon’s end-of-life status and older DDR3 platform, however, limit its future upgrade path.

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 wins where the specs favor it. It has higher base and boost clocks, an unlocked multiplier, and a modern AM4 socket with DDR4 memory support. It is an active production part, so availability and platform support are current. For a desktop user who wants to overclock, tweak memory, or upgrade later on the same platform, the Ryzen is the more practical choice. Its larger L1 and L2 caches per core could also benefit certain latency-sensitive applications, even though the recorded Cinebench results do not show a win.

In summary, the Intel part wins the benchmark sweep and the efficiency contest. The AMD part wins on platform modernity, clock speed, and overclocking flexibility. The data says Intel is faster; the practical build says AMD is more versatile for a desktop user.