AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests: the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins every single round, but by a narrow margin. The largest advantage is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon scores 84 against the Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE's 82, a 2.4% lead. The smallest edge is a 2.2% gap, which appears in the R15 multi-core test (595 vs 582), R20 multi-core (2482 vs 2429), R23 multi-core (5910 vs 5785), and R23 single-core (834 vs 816). The R20 single-core test sits between those with a 2.3% margin (350 vs 342).

What does this mean in practical terms? A 2.2% to 2.4% delta is essentially a statistical tie for most real-world workloads. The Xeon's wins are real, but they are not transformative. The data shows that in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon is only 125 points ahead out of nearly 6,000 total points, a margin that would be imperceptible in daily use. The single-core R15 test, with an 84 vs 82 score, is even closer in absolute terms.

The wider database context reinforces this picture. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 sits at the 40th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1709. The Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE sits one percentile higher at 41, with an average score of 1750. This is a notable inversion: the Ryzen has a higher average score across its full benchmark suite, even though it loses every Cinebench head-to-head. The Ryzen's average is boosted by its Geekbench results, which are not part of the head-to-head comparison. It scores 2921 in Geekbench multi-core and 1042 in single-core, tests the Xeon does not have recorded.

The nearest rival data places each chip in different company. The Xeon's closest competitors include the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 (matching 1709, 0% delta), the Intel Core i7-990X (1713, -0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U (1715, -0.4%). The Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE sits alongside the Intel Core i5-8269U (1748, 0.1% delta), the Intel Core i7-980X (1746, 0.3%), and the Intel Core i7-4790T (1755, -0.3%). This places the Ryzen in slightly higher-performing company on average, despite losing the direct comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins all three single-core Cinebench tests. It leads by 2.4% in R15 (84 vs 82), 2.3% in R20 (350 vs 342), and 2.2% in R23 (834 vs 816).

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE win any benchmark against the Xeon?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows six wins for the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 and zero wins for the Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE. However, the Ryzen does have Geekbench scores recorded (2921 multi-core, 1042 single-core) that are not part of the direct comparison.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE has a higher average benchmark score at 1750, compared to the Xeon's 1709. The Ryzen also sits at the 41st percentile versus the Xeon's 40th percentile.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two chips?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 has a TDP of 140 watts, while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE has a TDP of 35 watts. This is a four-fold difference in rated power draw.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE have ECC memory support listed in the database.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins in every recorded Cinebench workload. This includes both multi-threaded and single-threaded tests across three different Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23). The margins are consistent, ranging from 2.2% to 2.4%. For users running Cinebench specifically, or workloads with similar rendering characteristics, the Xeon is the safer pick. Its 8 threads versus the Ryzen's 4 threads likely contribute to the multi-core wins, although the single-core advantage suggests the Xeon's per-thread performance is also slightly better in this benchmark family.

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE, despite losing the head-to-head, has its own territory where it comes out ahead. Its average benchmark score of 1750 is 2.4% higher than the Xeon's 1709. This is driven by its Geekbench results: 2921 multi-core and 1042 single-core. Users who rely on Geekbench as a reference will see the Ryzen as the stronger chip. Additionally, the Ryzen includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, so systems built around it do not require a discrete GPU for basic display output. The Xeon has no integrated graphics listed.

The Ryzen also wins decisively on power efficiency. With a 35 watt TDP versus the Xeon's 140 watts, the Ryzen draws a fraction of the power. For compact or low-noise builds, or any scenario where heat output matters, the Ryzen is the clear choice. The Xeon's 140 watt TDP demands more substantial cooling and a more capable power delivery system.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge significantly on almost every specification except core count, memory type, and ECC support. Both have 4 cores, both support DDR4 memory, and both list ECC memory as supported. Beyond that, the differences are substantial.

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 has 8 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE has 4 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 3.50 GHz with a boost of 3.60 GHz. The Ryzen starts lower at 3.30 GHz but boosts higher to 4.00 GHz. The TDP gap is extreme: 140 watts for the Xeon, 35 watts for the Ryzen.

The memory buses differ: the Xeon uses quad-channel memory with a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, while the Ryzen uses dual-channel with 46.9 GB/s. The Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus 16 for the Ryzen. The Xeon has no integrated graphics; the Ryzen includes Radeon Vega 8.

The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 2011-3, while the Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4. The Xeon targets the Server/Workstation market segment and is end-of-life. The Ryzen is an active Desktop product. The Xeon released on September 7, 2014; the Ryzen released on September 29, 2019.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide reflects two very different design philosophies and eras. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP codename, built on Intel's 22 nm process node. The die is 356 mm² and contains 2,600 million transistors. The Xeon has a 64 KB L1 cache per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3 cache.

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE uses the Zen+ architecture with the Picasso codename, built on GlobalFoundries' 12 nm process. The die is smaller at 210 mm² but packs more transistors: 4,940 million. The Ryzen has a larger L1 cache at 96 KB per core, a larger L2 at 512 KB per core, but a much smaller shared L3 at 4 MB.

The transistor density difference is stark. The Ryzen crams nearly twice as many transistors into a smaller die, reflecting the newer process node. The Xeon's larger 10 MB L3 cache is a substantial advantage for workloads that fit within that pool, while the Ryzen's smaller 4 MB L3 might require more frequent memory access.

The Ryzen's integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics represent a fundamental architectural difference: it is a complete APU. The Xeon is a pure CPU with no graphics component. The Ryzen also boosts more aggressively, from 3.30 GHz to 4.00 GHz, a 21% increase, while the Xeon's boost is minimal, from 3.50 to 3.60 GHz. The Xeon compensates with quad-channel memory and double the PCIe lanes, features aimed at workstation workloads.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on use case. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 is the better choice for users who prioritize raw Cinebench rendering performance, need quad-channel memory bandwidth, or require a high lane count for PCIe devices. It wins all six head-to-head tests, with a consistent 2.2% to 2.4% edge. Its 8 threads and 10 MB L3 cache give it a structural advantage in highly parallel, cache-sensitive workloads. The 40 PCIe lanes make it viable for multi-GPU or heavy expansion card configurations. However, its 140 watt TDP and end-of-life status mean it demands more from the platform and offers no upgrade path within its socket generation.

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 3200GE is the better choice for power-constrained or compact builds. Its 35 watt TDP is a fraction of the Xeon's, and it includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU. Its average benchmark score of 1750 is higher than the Xeon's 1709, driven by strong Geekbench results. The Ryzen also boosts to 4.00 GHz, giving it a higher peak clock. For everyday desktop use, general productivity, or any workload where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter more than a 2.2% Cinebench margin, the Ryzen is the practical pick.

The Xeon is a server/workstation part from 2014, the Ryzen is an active desktop part from 2019. The benchmark gap between them is small, but the platform implications are large. Choose the Xeon if you need its workstation features and can handle its power draw. Choose the Ryzen for a modern, efficient, and self-contained desktop solution. The measured performance difference is not large enough to override those platform considerations.