AMD Ryzen 5 1600X vs Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 and AMD Ryzen 5 1600X occupy a similar performance tier according to aggregate benchmark data, yet they approach it from fundamentally different architectural standpoints. Both processors land at the 53rd percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical—3264 for the Intel part versus 3249 for the AMD part. The data reveals a consistent pattern: the Xeon edges out the Ryzen in every recorded Cinebench test, but the margins are uniformly slim, ranging from 1.9% to 2.0%. This makes the choice between them less about raw capability and more about platform characteristics and specific workload fit.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the dataset, taking all six recorded Cinebench tests. Its victories span both multi-core and single-core workloads, from Cinebench R15 through R23. In multi-core tests, the Xeon’s 8-core, 16-thread configuration provides a structural advantage over the Ryzen 5 1600X’s 6-core, 12-thread setup. The multi-core deltas are consistent at 1.9% across R15, R20, and R23, suggesting a stable performance gap that scales with thread count.

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600X, despite losing all direct comparisons, is not without merit. Its single-core scores trail by the same 1.9–2.0% margin, meaning the gap is narrow enough to be considered negligible in many real-world scenarios. The Ryzen’s higher base clock of 3.60 GHz and boost clock of 4.00 GHz—compared to the Xeon’s 3.20 GHz and 3.80 GHz—help it stay competitive despite having fewer cores. The Ryzen also benefits from a more modern platform with an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, which is not available on the Xeon.

For workloads that are lightly threaded, the Ryzen 5 1600X offers nearly identical performance to the Xeon, making it a viable choice for everyday desktop tasks. For heavily threaded applications, the Xeon’s two extra cores provide a measurable, though modest, advantage. The data does not show any benchmark category where the Ryzen wins outright, but its competitive single-thread performance and superior platform flexibility make it the more balanced option for general-purpose desktop use.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on the same 14 nm process node but differ in nearly every other architectural aspect. The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 uses the Broadwell-EP architecture, manufactured by Intel, while the AMD Ryzen 5 1600X uses the Zen architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries. The Xeon packs 3,400 million transistors on a 246 mm² die, whereas the Ryzen contains 4,800 million transistors on a smaller 213 mm² die—a higher transistor density that reflects a different design philosophy.

Core and cache configurations diverge sharply. The Xeon offers 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen provides 6 cores and 12 threads. Per-core cache allocations differ: the Xeon has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, while the Ryzen has 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core. At the shared L3 level, the Xeon’s 20 MB pool outpaces the Ryzen’s 16 MB, giving the Intel part a total cache advantage that helps compensate for its smaller per-core L1 and L2 allocations.

Memory subsystems present a major differentiator. The Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 with a peak bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Ryzen is limited to dual-channel operation with 42.7 GB/s. This 34.1 GB/s gap in theoretical bandwidth favors the Xeon in memory-intensive workloads, though the Ryzen’s lower bandwidth is partially offset by its higher clock speeds. Both support ECC memory, and neither includes integrated graphics.

PCIe connectivity also favors the Xeon, which offers 40 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, compared to the Ryzen’s 16 lanes. This makes the Xeon better suited for multi-GPU configurations or high-bandwidth expansion cards. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, while the Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4. The Ryzen is part of the 1000 series and remains in active production, whereas the Xeon is end-of-life and was released roughly ten months earlier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a remarkably consistent pattern of narrow Intel victories. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1137 against the Ryzen’s 1116, a 1.9% difference. The single-core R15 result is similarly close: 160 versus 157, also 1.9% apart. These margins indicate that the Xeon’s architectural advantages translate into real, but small, performance gains.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon again leads in multi-core with 4739 points versus 4650, maintaining the 1.9% delta. In single-core R20, the Xeon’s 669 edges out the Ryzen’s 656, a 2.0% margin—the largest gap recorded in the entire comparison. This suggests that the Xeon’s per-core efficiency, despite its lower clock speeds, is slightly superior to the Ryzen’s higher-frequency design.

The most recent Cinebench R23 results continue the trend. In multi-core, the Xeon scores 11285 against the Ryzen’s 11073, a 1.9% advantage. In single-core, the Xeon’s 1593 beats the Ryzen’s 1563, another 1.9% margin. Across all six tests, the Xeon’s lead never exceeds 2.0%, and the Ryzen never wins a single benchmark. The consistency of these deltas—hovering around 1.9%—suggests a fundamental per-core performance parity, with the Xeon’s extra two cores providing the multi-core edge and slightly better single-thread efficiency providing the rest.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 1600X has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Xeon in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Xeon scores 11285 versus the Ryzen’s 11073, a 1.9% difference in favor of the Intel part.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 1600X win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The dataset shows the Xeon winning all six head-to-head benchmarks, with the Ryzen trailing by 1.9% to 2.0% in each test.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences between the two?

A: The Xeon supports quad-channel memory with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen uses dual-channel memory with 42.7 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 1600X boosts to 4.00 GHz, compared to the Xeon’s 3.80 GHz boost clock.

Q: Can either processor be overclocked?

A: The Ryzen 5 1600X has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon E5-1660 v4 does not.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but narrow victory for the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4. It wins every recorded benchmark, but the margins are consistently small—between 1.9% and 2.0%—meaning the performance difference is real yet unlikely to be perceptible in most applications. The Xeon’s advantages stem from its 8-core configuration, larger 20 MB L3 cache, and quad-channel memory support with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. These features make it the better choice for workloads that scale with core count or demand high memory throughput, such as rendering, scientific computing, or multi-VM environments.

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600X, despite losing all direct comparisons, offers a compelling alternative. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.60 GHz and 4.00 GHz) help it nearly match the Xeon in single-threaded performance, with deficits of only 1.9–2.0%. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, which could close or even reverse the gap in practice. Its active production status and AM4 socket provide a more modern, upgradeable platform. For users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness or platform flexibility, the Ryzen is the data-supported choice.

However, the Xeon’s platform advantages cannot be ignored. The 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes and quad-channel memory provide headroom that the Ryzen’s 16 lanes and dual-channel bus cannot match. The Xeon’s end-of-life status and launch MSRP of $1113 are significant considerations, but the benchmark data shows it remains a capable performer. The final decision hinges on workload: the Xeon for memory-bandwidth-hungry, highly threaded tasks; the Ryzen for general desktop use where its clock speed and overclocking potential offset its two-core deficit. Neither processor dominates, but the data gives the Xeon a slight edge in raw performance and the Ryzen a slight edge in platform modernity.