AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 vs Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an extraordinary case: the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 and the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 are virtually inseparable across every Cinebench test, with the AMD part winning all six head-to-head comparisons by margins that never exceed 0.1%. The average benchmark scores tell the same story — 1778 for the Ryzen against 1777 for the Xeon, a difference of exactly one point, or 0.1% in favor of the AMD chip. This is a statistical dead heat that raises immediate questions about what architectural factors could produce such identical results from such different hardware.

Looking at individual tests, the pattern holds with remarkable consistency. In Cinebench R15 multicore, both processors score exactly 619, a perfect tie. The single-core R15 results are equally matched at 87 points apiece. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Ryzen edges ahead by a razor-thin 2 points (2582 vs 2580, a 0.1% delta), and the single-core R20 scores are again identical at 364. The newer Cinebench R23 tests show the same minimal separation: 6148 vs 6144 in multicore (0.1% delta) and 868 vs 867 in single-core (0.1% delta). The AMD processor wins all six recorded tests, but the word "wins" here carries almost no practical weight — these deltas are well within run-to-run variance for any benchmark suite.

What makes this fascinating is the underlying hardware disparity. The Xeon E5-4610 v3 packs 10 cores and 20 threads against the Ryzen's 4 cores and 4 threads, yet the scores do not reflect that 6-core, 16-thread advantage. The Xeon's base clock of 1700.00 MHz (the odd formatting in the data suggests this is 1.70 GHz) is dramatically lower than the Ryzen's 3.50 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The Ryzen compensates for its core deficit with raw frequency, while the Xeon relies on sheer thread count — and the result is a wash. This suggests that in these specific Cinebench workloads, the combination of per-core throughput and thread scaling reaches an equilibrium point where neither architecture can pull ahead.

The nearestRivals data reinforces how tightly clustered this performance tier is. The Ryzen's closest rival is the Xeon itself, with a 0.1% delta, followed by the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 at 0.3%, the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE at -0.5%, and the Intel Core i7-4870HQ at 0.5%. The Xeon's list mirrors this, with the Ryzen at -0.1%, the E5-2637 v3 at 0.2%, the i7-4870HQ at 0.4%, and the 3200GE at -0.6%. Both processors sit at the 41st percentile of all CPUs, meaning they outperform roughly 41% of the database's tested processors — a mid-pack position that aligns with their near-identical average scores.

The percentile ranking at 41 for both chips is worth interrogating. For a 2017 desktop part with just 4 cores, the Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 landing at the 41st percentile suggests its high clock speeds deliver respectable single-threaded performance that lifts its overall standing. For a 2015 server/workstation Xeon with 10 cores and 20 threads, the same percentile indicates that its massive core count is hamstrung by the very low base clock, preventing it from climbing higher in the rankings. The data implies these two chips achieve the same overall performance through opposite design philosophies.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 edges out the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 by a single point, 1778 to 1777, a 0.1% difference. The Xeon lists the Ryzen as its nearest rival with a -0.1% delta, while the Ryzen lists the Xeon at +0.1%.

Q: How much does the Xeon E5-4610 v3 win in multicore tests?

A: It doesn't. The Xeon fails to win any of the six head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 wins all six, though the largest margin is only 0.1% in Cinebench R20 and R23 multicore tests.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads. Despite the Xeon's 6-core and 16-thread advantage, their benchmark scores are nearly identical.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 and the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 have ECC memory support enabled. Both also support DDR4 memory, though the Ryzen uses a dual-channel bus while the Xeon uses quad-channel.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Xeon E5-4610 v3?

A: The launch MSRP of the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 is $1219. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 scores 868, while the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 scores 867, a 0.1% difference. This is consistent with their other single-core results, which are either tied or separated by a single point.

# The Verdict

The benchmark data makes a compelling case that these two processors are functionally equivalent in the tested workloads, despite their radically different designs. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, but with deltas of 0% to 0.1%, those wins are statistically meaningless. A user choosing between these two purely on Cinebench performance would be choosing on other factors entirely.

The Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 is the obvious pick for a desktop builder who needs a modern, actively produced socket (AMD Socket AM4) with an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. Its 65W TDP, 14nm process from GlobalFoundries, and 3.50 GHz base clock make it a fundamentally different class of product from the Xeon. The Xeon E5-4610 v3, by contrast, is an end-of-life server/workstation part with a 105W TDP, a 22nm Intel process, and a locked multiplier. Its 10 cores and 20 threads would seem to promise more headroom for heavily threaded workloads, but the data shows it delivers the same Cinebench scores as the 4-core Ryzen.

For a server or workstation builder, the Xeon's quad-channel memory bus (51.2 GB/s bandwidth vs the Ryzen's 42.7 GB/s) and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are features the Ryzen simply does not offer. But for anyone running the specific Cinebench workloads tested here, the choice is a coin flip. The data suggests that if your application scales like Cinebench does — with diminishing returns beyond a certain thread count — the Ryzen's high clocks win out. If your application scales perfectly with threads, the Xeon's core count would theoretically win, but no benchmark in this data set demonstrates that.

The production status is a decisive factor. The Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 is listed as "Active," while the Xeon E5-4610 v3 is "End-of-life." For a new purchase, the Ryzen is the only sensible choice from a support and availability standpoint. The Xeon's launch MSRP of $1219 also reflects a different era of pricing, though the data does not indicate current street prices.

# Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification category, which makes their benchmark equivalence all the more striking. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads — a 6-core and 16-thread difference. The base clock tells the inverse story: the Ryzen runs at 3.50 GHz (with a 3.70 GHz boost), while the Xeon runs at just 1700.00 MHz with no boost clock listed in the data.

Thermal design power also diverges sharply. The Ryzen draws 65W, the Xeon 105W. The process nodes are different generations: the Ryzen uses 14nm from GlobalFoundries, the Xeon uses 22nm from Intel. Transistor counts and die sizes reflect these process differences — the Ryzen packs 4,800 million transistors into a 213 mm² die, while the Xeon has 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die.

Cache hierarchies are entirely different. The Ryzen has 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a much larger 25 MB of shared L3. Memory support shows the Xeon's server pedigree: it uses quad-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen uses dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, but the Xeon adds 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only) while the Ryzen lists no PCIe information.

The sockets are incompatible: the Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4, the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The Ryzen has an unlocked multiplier, the Xeon does not. The Ryzen is listed as Active production with a 2017 release date, while the Xeon is End-of-life with a 2015 release date. The Ryzen's market segment is Desktop, the Xeon's is Server/Workstation.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is generational and philosophical. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 uses the Zen architecture (codenamed "Zen," specifically "Summit Ridge") from the 1000 series, built on a 14nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 uses the Haswell architecture (codenamed "Haswell-EP") from the Xeon E5 family, built on a 22nm process at Intel. The Ryzen is a desktop part designed for high single-thread throughput with a modest core count; the Xeon is a server/workstation part designed for massive parallelism with a very low base clock.

The Ryzen's Zen architecture emphasizes per-core efficiency and clock speed. With a 3.50 GHz base clock and 3.70 GHz boost, it achieves high frequency on a modern process. The Xeon's Haswell architecture is older and was not designed for clock speed — its 1700.00 MHz base clock is exceptionally low, and it lacks a boost clock in the data. The Xeon compensates with 10 cores and 20 threads, but the benchmarks show that in Cinebench, this thread advantage does not translate into higher scores.

Cache and memory architecture reflect their different roles. The Ryzen's 8 MB of L3 is shared across 4 cores, while the Xeon's 25 MB of L3 is shared across 10 cores — a much larger pool per core for the Xeon, but the benefit is not visible in these results. The Xeon's quad-channel memory bus and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are features for server workloads like virtualization or large databases, which the Ryzen cannot match. The Ryzen's dual-channel bus is adequate for desktop use.

The production status difference is notable. The Ryzen is Active, meaning it is still in production and supported. The Xeon is End-of-life, meaning it is no longer manufactured. For architectural longevity, the Ryzen is the clear winner. The Xeon's 2015 release date also means it predates the Ryzen by two years, and the benchmark results suggest that two years of architectural advancement in the Ryzen's favor effectively canceled out the Xeon's core advantage.

# Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 winning all six head-to-head tests, but the margins are so small that "winning" is a technicality. The Ryzen's real advantages lie outside the Cinebench scores: it is an Active, current production part with an unlocked multiplier, a 65W TDP, and a modern 14nm process. For a desktop user building a new system today, the Ryzen is the only viable choice between these two — the Xeon is end-of-life, uses a dead socket (Intel Socket 2011-3), and has a locked multiplier.

The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 wins in areas the benchmarks do not measure. Its quad-channel memory bus offers 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, 8.5 GB/s more than the Ryzen's dual-channel 42.7 GB/s. It also provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), which the Ryzen does not list at all. For a server or workstation application that depends on memory bandwidth or PCIe expansion — such as high-performance storage arrays, GPU compute clusters, or memory-intensive databases — the Xeon's platform features would be decisive, even if its Cinebench scores match the Ryzen.

The Xeon's 10 cores and 20 threads also present a theoretical advantage for workloads that scale linearly with thread count. The fact that Cinebench does not show this advantage suggests those workloads may not exist in the tested scenarios, or that the Xeon's low clock speed negates its core count in these particular benchmarks. A user running a heavily threaded, memory-bound server workload might find the Xeon superior, but the data available does not support that conclusion.

The Ryzen, by contrast, is the pick for any desktop workload represented by Cinebench: content creation, 3D rendering, or general productivity. Its high clock speed and modern architecture deliver identical scores to the Xeon while consuming 40W less power and offering overclocking headroom. The Ryzen's 41st percentile ranking, while modest, is achieved with just 4 cores — evidence of its per-core efficiency. The Xeon achieves the same percentile with 10 cores, a sign that its per-core performance is severely limited by its clock speed. For most users, the Ryzen is the obvious choice; the Xeon is only relevant for those who specifically need its server-class platform features.