AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 vs Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 Comparison

# AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 vs Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 and Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 are both 4-core processors aimed at different eras of computing, yet they land in the same performance tier. The Ryzen 3 PRO 1300, built on AMD's Zen architecture, and the Xeon E3-1241 v3, based on Intel's Haswell design, deliver nearly identical average benchmark scores—1778 for the AMD part versus 1756 for the Intel part. Both sit at the 41st percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same mid-range performance bracket. The data shows a consistent, albeit narrow, edge for the AMD processor across every Cinebench test, with deltas ranging from 1.1% to 1.4%. This is a close matchup where architectural age and thread count differences do not translate into a decisive victory for either side.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but the margins are slim. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD scores 619 against Intel's 612, a 1.1% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows 87 versus 86, a 1.2% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the AMD part scores 2582 multi-core and 364 single-core, while the Xeon manages 2550 and 359 respectively—deltas of 1.3% and 1.4%. The newest test, Cinebench R23, follows the same pattern: AMD scores 6148 multi-core and 868 single-core, against Intel's 6072 and 857, both 1.3% ahead.

The consistency of these results is notable. Across three generations of Cinebench, the AMD processor never trails, yet never breaks away. The largest gap is the 1.4% single-core R20 result, which is still within run-to-run variance territory for many workloads. What is striking is that the Xeon E3-1241 v3 has twice the threads—8 versus 4—yet still loses multi-core tests. This suggests the Ryzen's newer Zen architecture extracts more work per clock from each core, offsetting the Xeon's hyper-threading advantage. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: AMD's 1778 average edges out Intel's 1756 by roughly 1.3%, which aligns closely with the Cinebench deltas.

The nearest rival data puts both processors in context. The Ryzen 3 PRO 1300's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE, which scores 1787, just 0.5% higher. The Xeon E3-1241 v3's nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-5675C at 1759, only 0.2% higher. These comparisons show both CPUs are tightly clustered with their peers, meaning neither offers a performance outlier in either direction. For a builder choosing between these two, the benchmark data alone will not settle the decision—other factors like platform longevity and power efficiency become more important.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 619 in R15, 2582 in R20, and 6148 in R23, compared to Intel's 612, 2550, and 6072. The margins are 1.1% to 1.3%, so the AMD part is faster, but not dramatically so.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon's 8 threads give it an advantage in any test?

A: No. Despite having 8 threads versus the AMD's 4, the Xeon E3-1241 v3 loses every multi-core benchmark. The Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 finishes 1.1% ahead in R15 multi-core, 1.3% ahead in R20, and 1.3% ahead in R23. The Zen architecture's efficiency outweighs the thread count deficit.

Q: How do these processors compare to their closest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 3 PRO 1300's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE, which scores 1787 average versus 1778, a 0.5% difference. The Xeon E3-1241 v3's closest rival is the Intel Core i5-5675C at 1759 versus 1756, a 0.2% gap. Both are positioned near the center of their performance cluster.

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 wins single-core tests by 1.2% to 1.4%. In R15 it scores 87 versus 86, in R20 it scores 364 versus 359, and in R23 it scores 868 versus 857. The AMD part has a slight edge, but the gap is small.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 boosts to 3.90 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 boosts to 3.70 GHz. The Intel part has a 0.20 GHz higher boost clock, yet still loses single-core benchmarks, indicating the AMD architecture is more efficient per clock.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 is listed as Active production status, while the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 is End-of-life. This means the AMD part is still available for new builds, whereas the Intel part would be sourced from existing stock or the used market.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors spans a full process node generation. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, packing 4,800 million transistors into a 213 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 uses Intel's 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The AMD chip crams over three times as many transistors into a larger area, reflecting the density improvements of the newer node.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, while the Xeon has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. Both share 8 MB of L3 cache, but the AMD part's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches likely contribute to its single-core performance edge despite the lower boost clock. The AMD part also uses the Zen architecture with Summit Ridge codename, while Intel uses Haswell-WS.

Memory support is another major divergence. The Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon E3-1241 v3 uses DDR3 with dual-channel and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. This is a substantial 67% bandwidth advantage for the AMD platform, which can matter in memory-sensitive workloads. Both processors support ECC memory, making them viable for workstation or entry-server builds.

The socket and platform are entirely different. AMD uses Socket AM4, which is a desktop platform, while Intel uses Socket 1150, classified as Server/Workstation. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part is locked. The AMD processor also has no integrated graphics, same as the Intel part. The AMD chip was released in June 2017, while the Intel chip launched in May 2014, a three-year gap that explains the architectural improvements.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are identical at 3.50 GHz, but boost clocks differ—the AMD reaches 3.70 GHz, the Intel reaches 3.90 GHz. TDP also differs: the AMD part draws 65 watts, the Intel part 80 watts, making the AMD chip more power-efficient.

Process node and foundry differ: AMD uses 14 nm at GlobalFoundries, Intel uses 22 nm at Intel. Transistor counts diverge sharply: 4,800 million for AMD versus 1,400 million for Intel. Die size is 213 mm² for AMD versus 160 mm² for Intel. Cache hierarchies differ in L1 and L2 sizes, though both share 8 MB L3.

Memory support is a key differentiator: AMD uses DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, Intel uses DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s. The socket differs: AMD Socket AM4 versus Intel Socket 1150. PCIe support is only listed for Intel: Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Market segment differs: AMD is Desktop, Intel is Server/Workstation. Production status differs: AMD is Active, Intel is End-of-life. Release dates are June 2017 for AMD and May 2014 for Intel. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $273; no MSRP is listed for AMD. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, the Intel part does not. Part numbers are YD130BBBM4KAE for AMD and SR1R4 for Intel.

The Verdict

The benchmark data gives the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 a clean sweep: 6 wins, 0 losses, with margins from 1.1% to 1.4%. The AMD part achieves this while using fewer threads, a lower boost clock, and a 15-watt lower TDP. The Xeon E3-1241 v3's only spec-level advantages are its 0.20 GHz higher boost clock and its 8 threads, neither of which translates into a benchmark victory.

For a new build, the choice is clear. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 is Active in production, uses the modern AM4 socket with DDR4 support, and offers more cache per core. The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 is End-of-life, uses the older DDR3 platform, and draws more power. The AMD part also has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking potential that the locked Intel chip cannot match.

However, the Xeon E3-1241 v3 remains relevant for those already invested in the Socket 1150 platform with DDR3 memory. Its 8 threads could be beneficial in specific multithreaded applications that scale with thread count, even if Cinebench does not show an advantage. The launch MSRP of $273 for the Intel part was positioned at a premium, but the data suggests the AMD processor delivers comparable or better performance at a lower power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 wins in every benchmark category tested. It takes single-core tests by 1.2% to 1.4%, showing that its Zen architecture delivers more instructions per clock than Haswell. It wins multi-core tests by 1.1% to 1.3%, overcoming the Xeon's 2x thread advantage. It wins on power efficiency, with a 65-watt TDP versus 80 watts. It wins on platform modernity, with DDR4 support, 42.7 GB/s bandwidth versus 25.6 GB/s, and an active production status. It wins on flexibility, with an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 does not win any benchmark, but it holds advantages in specific specification areas. Its 8 threads provide headroom for workloads that the Cinebench suite does not capture—applications with heavy parallelization could see closer results or even a reversal. Its 3.90 GHz boost clock is higher than the AMD's 3.70 GHz, which could help in lightly threaded tasks that respond to raw clock speed. Its market segment as Server/Workstation suggests it was validated for longer operational duty cycles, though the data does not quantify this. For a builder with existing DDR3 memory and a Socket 1150 motherboard, the Xeon could be a cost-effective drop-in upgrade. For anyone starting fresh, the Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 is the data-backed choice, offering superior performance in every measured test with a more modern and efficient platform.