AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Intel Xeon E-2374G Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2374G and AMD Ryzen 5 1600X are both active, 14 nm parts, but they target different segments: the Xeon is a server/workstation chip while the Ryzen is a desktop processor. Despite the Ryzen’s advantage in core count (6 vs 4) and threads (12 vs 8), the benchmark data shows the Xeon winning every single head-to-head test, albeit by a narrow margin. The Xeon’s higher boost clock and newer architecture appear to offset the Ryzen’s two extra physical cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent, with the Intel Xeon E-2374G taking all six Cinebench comparisons. The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon scores 161 against the Ryzen’s 157, a 2.5% difference. The multi-core version of the same test shows a 2.3% gap, with the Xeon at 1142 and the Ryzen at 1116. This pattern repeats across newer benchmarks: in Cinebench R20, the Xeon leads by 2.4% in both multi-core (4760 vs 4650) and single-core (672 vs 656) runs.

The most recent tests, Cinebench R23, mirror this exactly. The Xeon’s multi-core score of 11335 beats the Ryzen’s 11073 by 2.4%, while the single-core score of 1600 tops the Ryzen’s 1563 by the same 2.4% margin. The consistency of the deltaPct—hovering around 2.3% to 2.5% across all workloads—suggests the Xeon’s advantage is not workload-specific but rather a general per-clock efficiency lead. The Ryzen’s two additional cores and four additional threads do not translate into a multi-core win; the Xeon’s 5.00 GHz boost clock compared to the Ryzen’s 4.00 GHz appears to be the decisive factor.

In terms of average benchmark scores, the Xeon posts 3278 against the Ryzen’s 3249. Both processors sit at the 53rd percentile among all CPUs, placing them in the same performance tier overall. The Xeon’s nearest rival, the Intel Core i3-12100T, has an average score of 3277, a 0% delta, while the Ryzen’s nearest rival, the Intel Xeon D-1581, scores 3238, putting the Ryzen 0.3% ahead. Notably, the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 appears as a rival for both, with the Xeon E-2374G leading it by 0.4% and the Ryzen trailing it by 0.5%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2374G wins every multi-core test, despite having only 4 cores and 8 threads versus the Ryzen 5 1600X’s 6 cores and 12 threads. The margins are 2.3% in Cinebench R15 (1142 vs 1116), 2.4% in R20 (4760 vs 4650), and 2.4% in R23 (11335 vs 11073).

Q: Is the single-core performance gap larger than the multi-core gap?

A: No, the gaps are nearly identical. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon leads by 2.5% (161 vs 157). In R20 single-core, the lead is 2.4% (672 vs 656), and in R23 single-core, it is also 2.4% (1600 vs 1563). The multi-core deltas are 2.3% to 2.4%, so the advantage is uniform.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E-2374G has an average benchmark score of 3278, while the Ryzen 5 1600X scores 3249. Both CPUs are at the 53rd percentile of all processors, indicating they belong to the same performance tier.

Q: What are the release dates for these CPUs?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2374G was released on 2021-09-07, while the AMD Ryzen 5 1600X was released earlier, on 2017-04-10. The Xeon is the newer part by over four years.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E-2374G and the AMD Ryzen 5 1600X support ECC memory. Both also use DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2374G has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, which is 1.00 GHz higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 1600X’s 4.00 GHz boost clock. This likely explains the Xeon’s consistent lead in single-threaded tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different architectural eras. The Intel Xeon E-2374G is based on Rocket Lake-E, part of the Xeon E-2300 series, built on Intel’s 14 nm process with a die size of 276 mm². In contrast, the AMD Ryzen 5 1600X uses the original Zen architecture (Summit Ridge), also on a 14 nm node but with a smaller die at 213 mm² and 4,800 million transistors. The foundry differs as well: Intel fabricates its chip in-house, while GlobalFoundries produces the AMD part.

Cache configurations show a notable divergence. The Xeon offers 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 8 MB L3 cache. The Ryzen provides more L1 per core at 96 KB, the same 512 KB L2 per core, but doubles the shared L3 to 16 MB. Despite having half the cores, the Xeon’s smaller L3 cache is compensated by its higher clock speeds, as evidenced by its benchmark wins.

Memory bandwidth also differs: the Xeon supports 51.2 GB/s versus the Ryzen’s 42.7 GB/s, a 20% advantage for Intel. PCIe connectivity is another differentiator, with the Xeon offering Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes while the Ryzen is limited to Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes. The Xeon also includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics P750), whereas the Ryzen 5 1600X has no iGPU at all. The Xeon’s market segment is Server/Workstation, while the Ryzen is classified as Desktop.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is core count: the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Ryzen has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are close, with the Xeon at 3.70 GHz and the Ryzen at 3.60 GHz, but the boost clocks diverge sharply—5.00 GHz for Intel versus 4.00 GHz for AMD. Thermal design power (TDP) favors the Xeon at 80 W compared to the Ryzen’s 95 W, meaning the Intel part delivers higher performance at a lower rated power draw.

Socket compatibility is entirely different: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1200, while the Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4. The Xeon’s L3 cache is 8 MB shared, exactly half of the Ryzen’s 16 MB shared L3. Memory bandwidth is higher on the Xeon (51.2 GB/s vs 42.7 GB/s), and PCIe generation is newer (Gen 4 vs Gen 3) with more lanes (20 vs 16). The Xeon includes integrated graphics; the Ryzen does not. The Xeon has a locked multiplier, whereas the Ryzen is multiplier-unlocked, allowing for overclocking. The launch MSRP for the Xeon is $334, stated once here as the reference price.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E-2374G wins in every measured category. It takes all six Cinebench tests, spanning R15, R20, and R23, across both single-core and multi-core workloads. The Xeon also has a higher average benchmark score (3278 vs 3249) and a higher boost clock (5.00 GHz vs 4.00 GHz). For users prioritizing raw single-threaded speed, the Xeon is the clear choice, as its single-core scores are consistently 2.4% to 2.5% ahead.

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600X does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it holds advantages in specifications that do not translate into wins here. Its 6-core/12-thread configuration provides more parallelism on paper, yet the Cinebench multi-core results show the Xeon still ahead. The Ryzen’s larger 16 MB L3 cache and unlocked multiplier are features that could benefit certain workloads or overclocking scenarios, but the provided data does not show a benchmark where the Ryzen comes out on top.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E-2374G outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 1600X in every benchmark recorded. With six wins out of six head-to-head comparisons, the Xeon’s advantage is consistent and measurable, ranging from 2.3% to 2.5% depending on the test. The Xeon achieves this with fewer cores, a higher TDP efficiency (80 W vs 95 W), and a much newer release date (September 2021 vs April 2017).

For a buyer choosing between these two, the Xeon is the pick for anyone needing the best Cinebench performance, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. Its higher boost clock, faster memory bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 4 support make it the more modern and capable part. The Ryzen 5 1600X, despite its extra cores and threads, falls short in all measured tests, placing it as the weaker option in this direct comparison. The Xeon’s server/workstation positioning also brings integrated graphics and ECC support, further solidifying its edge for professional use cases. The Ryzen’s only theoretical advantages—unlocked multiplier and larger L3 cache—do not manifest as benchmark wins, leaving the Xeon as the definitive choice based on the available data.