AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 are both 4-core desktop processors, but they represent radically different design philosophies and market positions. The Xeon is an enterprise-grade part built on Intel's Broadwell-EP architecture and designed for the now-legacy Socket 2011-3 platform, while the Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 is AMD's first-generation Zen architecture aimed at mainstream AM4 systems. Benchmark data shows a consistently narrow but uniform advantage for the Intel chip across every tested workload, yet the specifications tell a story of divergent priorities in power, platform, and memory architecture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent: the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins all six Cinebench tests, but by margins so slim they border on statistical noise. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 627 against the Ryzen's 619, a 1.3% advantage. The single-core test shows a similar pattern, with the Xeon at 88 points versus 87 points for the AMD, a 1.1% lead. These single-point deltas are the kind of difference that could easily flip with background processes or thermal variation.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the picture remains unchanged. The Xeon posts 2616 in multi-core against the Ryzen's 2582, again a 1.3% gap. In single-core, the Xeon manages 369 versus 364, a 1.4% difference — the largest proportional margin in the entire benchmark suite. The most modern test, Cinebench R23, follows the same script: the Intel part scores 6230 multi-core and 879 single-core, while the AMD part scores 6148 and 868 respectively. Both R23 deltas sit at exactly 1.3%.

The data shows a clean sweep: 6 wins for the Xeon, 0 for the Ryzen. Yet the average benchmark score difference is equally telling. The Xeon's average score of 1802 places it at the 42nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Ryzen's 1778 average lands at the 41st percentile. This one-percentile separation reflects the fact that both chips are thoroughly mid-pack performers in the broader CPU landscape. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-9100 at a 0.2% higher score and the Core i3-9320 at 0.4% higher, while the Ryzen's closest competition includes the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE, which sits 0.5% ahead. Neither chip is breaking any performance records; they are simply trading blows at the margins.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a 14 nm manufacturing process, but the similarities end there. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 is built on Intel's Broadwell-EP architecture, the server-grade iteration of Broadwell, and is fabricated by Intel itself using 3,400 million transistors across a 246 mm² die. The Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 uses AMD's original Zen microarchitecture, codenamed Summit Ridge, and is produced by GlobalFoundries with 4,800 million transistors on a smaller 213 mm² die. The AMD chip packs more transistors into less space, a reflection of its denser design.

Core and thread configurations differ meaningfully. Both chips have 4 physical cores, but the Xeon supports Hyper-Threading, bringing its thread count to 8. The Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 has no SMT support, limiting it to 4 threads. This is partially offset by clock speeds: both run at a 3.50 GHz base, but the Xeon boosts to 3.80 GHz versus the Ryzen's 3.70 GHz. The cache hierarchy also diverges. The Intel part uses 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 10 MB L3 cache. The AMD chip offers 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 8 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen therefore has larger per-core caches but less total last-level cache.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Ryzen is dual-channel, capped at 42.7 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, but the Xeon's platform is built for high-bandwidth workstation workloads. PCIe connectivity is another split: the Xeon offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Ryzen's PCIe specification is not listed in the data. The Xeon also draws significantly more power — 140 W TDP versus just 65 W for the Ryzen — a direct consequence of its server heritage and quad-channel memory controller.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins every multi-core benchmark in the data, but by only 1.3% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. Its 8 threads give it a theoretical advantage over the Ryzen's 4 threads, yet the actual performance gap is extremely small, suggesting the Ryzen's higher per-core efficiency compensates for its lack of SMT.

Q: Why is the Xeon's TDP so much higher if performance is nearly identical?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v4 has a 140 W TDP compared to the Ryzen 3 PRO 1300's 65 W. This is likely due to the Xeon's quad-channel memory controller and server-oriented design, which require more power even when compute performance is similar. The Ryzen achieves comparable results on less than half the power budget.

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both processors support ECC memory. This is notable for the Ryzen, as it brings a server-grade feature to a mainstream desktop platform, while for the Xeon it is expected given its enterprise positioning.

Q: What is the release timeline for these two chips?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 was released on June 19, 2016, and is now end-of-life. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 launched on June 28, 2017, and remains an active production product.

Q: Can the Ryzen be overclocked?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 does not. This gives the AMD part flexibility for users willing to tune clock speeds, though the data does not include overclocked benchmark results.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Xeon's average score of 1802 puts it within 0.4% of the Intel Core i3-9320 and 0.2% behind the Core i3-9100. The Ryzen's 1778 average is 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i7-4870HQ. Both chips are clustered tightly with mid-range processors from the same era.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 |

|---|---|---|

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 140 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Broadwell-EP | Zen |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 3,400 million | 4,800 million |

| Die Size | 246 mm² | 213 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 10 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) | Not specified |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2016-06-19 | 2017-06-28 |

| Launch MSRP | $294 | Not specified |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes one thing clear: for raw compute performance, the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 is the faster processor by every measure tested, but the margin is so thin that it will be imperceptible in real-world use. A 1.3% advantage in multi-threaded Cinebench tests is within run-to-run variance for most systems. The Xeon's 8 threads provide a structural advantage that the Ryzen's higher per-thread efficiency cannot fully overcome, but the AMD chip's 65 W TDP versus the Intel's 140 W tells a different story — the Ryzen delivers nearly identical performance at less than half the power draw.

The platform decision is where these two diverge sharply. The Xeon requires the expensive, high-bandwidth Socket 2011-3 ecosystem with quad-channel DDR4 and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, suited for memory-intensive workstation tasks. The Ryzen 3 PRO 1300, by contrast, uses the mainstream AM4 socket with dual-channel memory, a lower cost platform, and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The Xeon carries a $294 launch MSRP and is end-of-life, while the Ryzen is still actively produced.

Who should pick which? Data-driven users needing maximum memory bandwidth and PCIe lane count for specialized workloads should consider the Xeon, despite its power draw and legacy status. Users prioritizing efficiency, platform longevity, and overclocking flexibility should choose the Ryzen 3 PRO 1300, accepting a negligible performance deficit in exchange for significantly lower power consumption and an active production lifecycle. The Ryzen's 41st percentile ranking versus the Xeon's 42nd confirms they sit in the same performance class, making platform features and power the decisive factors.