AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins every single recorded test against the AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE. Out of six Cinebench comparisons, the Xeon takes all six, with margins ranging from 1.9% to 2.3%. The narrowest gap appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Xeon scores 369 against the Ryzen's 362, a 1.9% advantage. The widest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, with the Xeon at 88 and the Ryzen at 86, a 2.3% lead.

Multi-threaded workloads show a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon posts 627 versus 615, a 2% edge. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the same 2% delta, with scores of 2616 and 2564 respectively. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows suit: 6230 for the Xeon, 6107 for the Ryzen, again a 2% difference. Single-core results are equally one-sided. Beyond R15 and R20, Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Xeon at 879 against 862, a 2% lead.

These are not large deltas, but they are consistent across every workload. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the Xeon averages 1802, while the Ryzen averages 1766, a difference of roughly 2%. The Xeon also sits slightly higher in the global percentile ranking, at the 42nd percentile versus the Ryzen's 41st. The nearest rivals in the database confirm the narrow positioning: the Xeon's closest competitor, the Intel Core i3-9100, scores 1806, which is only 0.2% higher, while the AMD Opteron 6281 trails by 0.7%. For the Ryzen, the nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-4870HQ at 1769, just 0.2% above, and the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 is 0.4% higher. The data shows a processor that edges ahead in every measured category, but by margins that are small enough to be considered effectively competitive in real-world use.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies, despite both using a 14 nm process node. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 is built on the Broadwell-EP architecture, fabricated by Intel itself, with 3,400 million transistors on a 246 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE uses the Zen architecture under the Raven Ridge codename, fabricated by GlobalFoundries, packing 4,950 million transistors into a 210 mm² die. The AMD chip has significantly more transistors in a smaller area, which reflects its integrated graphics and newer design.

Cache configurations differ sharply. The Xeon allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen doubles the per-core L1 to 128 KB and L2 to 512 KB, but its shared L3 is only 4 MB. This means the Ryzen has faster per-core low-level caches but far less shared high-level cache, which can matter in multi-threaded workloads that rely on shared data. The Xeon's larger L3 is a notable advantage for server-style tasks.

Memory architecture is another major split. The Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Ryzen is limited to dual-channel DDR4 at 46.9 GB/s. That is a 64% bandwidth advantage for the Intel part, a substantial gap that can affect memory-intensive applications. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the Xeon provides 40 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, whereas the Ryzen offers only 8 Gen 3 lanes. The Xeon is clearly designed for a platform with extensive expansion capability, while the Ryzen targets a more modest desktop setup.

The Ryzen counters with integrated Radeon RX Vega 11 graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely. The Ryzen also has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the Xeon is locked. The Ryzen's TDP is 35 watts, a fraction of the Xeon's 140 watts, making it far more power-efficient on paper. The Ryzen uses an AMD Socket AM4, while the Xeon requires Intel Socket 2011-3. Release dates differ by nearly two years: the Xeon launched in June 2016, the Ryzen in April 2018. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life, while the Ryzen remains active in production.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow victory for the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 across every benchmark in the database. If the decision rests purely on raw Cinebench scores, the Xeon wins all six head-to-head tests and holds a higher average benchmark score. The margins, however, are small: 2% in most multi-core tests and 1.9% to 2.3% in single-core tests. These are not transformative differences; they are incremental edges that may be imperceptible in daily use.

The Ryzen 5 2400GE is not a poor performer. It trails by only 2% in multi-core workloads, which is within the margin of run-to-run variance for many systems. Its 35-watt TDP and integrated graphics make it a far more attractive option for compact or low-power builds, and the unlocked multiplier adds flexibility. But in the recorded benchmarks, it does not win a single test. Users who prioritize the highest Cinebench scores, memory bandwidth, or ECC support should choose the Xeon. Users who need integrated graphics, lower power consumption, or an unlocked multiplier should choose the Ryzen. The Xeon is the performance leader in this comparison, but the Ryzen wins on platform features that the benchmarks do not capture.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE |

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

| Cores | 4 | 4 |

| Threads | 8 | 8 |

| Base clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 140 W | 35 W |

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

| Architecture | Broadwell | Zen |

| Codename | Broadwell-EP | Raven Ridge |

| Process node | 14 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 3,400 million | 4,950 million |

| Die size | 246 mm² | 210 mm² |

| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 cache | 10 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 46.9 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 3, 40 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 8 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | None | Radeon RX Vega 11 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Production status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release date | June 2016 | April 2018 |

| Launch MSRP | $294 | Not recorded |

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 scores 6230, while the AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE scores 6107, giving the Xeon a 2% lead.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads, but their cache configurations differ: the Xeon has 10 MB of shared L3, while the Ryzen has 4 MB.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen supports dual-channel DDR4 with 46.9 GB/s, a 64% advantage for the Xeon.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 2400GE have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it features Radeon RX Vega 11 integrated graphics. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor has an unlocked multiplier?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 is locked.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins all six recorded Cinebench benchmarks, including every single-core and multi-core test. Its largest measured margin is 2.3% in Cinebench R15 single-core, and its smallest is 1.9% in Cinebench R20 single-core. The Xeon also wins on memory bandwidth (76.8 GB/s versus 46.9 GB/s), ECC support, and PCIe lane count (40 versus 8). It is the choice for workloads that demand maximum memory throughput, error-correcting memory, or extensive expansion via PCIe. Its 140-watt TDP reflects a design built for sustained performance in a workstation-class platform, and its 10 MB of shared L3 cache provides a larger pool for multi-threaded data sharing.

The AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE wins no benchmark tests, but it dominates in platform efficiency and flexibility. Its 35-watt TDP is a quarter of the Xeon's 140 watts, making it suitable for low-power or compact systems. The integrated Radeon RX Vega 11 graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU, which is a decisive advantage for basic desktop use or media playback. The unlocked multiplier allows users to adjust clock speeds beyond the stock 3.20 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. Its dual-channel memory and 4 MB L3 cache are smaller than the Xeon's, but the larger per-core L1 (128 KB versus 64 KB) and L2 (512 KB versus 256 KB) caches can benefit latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks, even if the recorded scores do not reflect a win. The Ryzen is the pick for users who value power efficiency, integrated graphics, overclocking headroom, and a modern active production platform. The Xeon is the pick for users who need the highest benchmark scores, memory bandwidth, ECC reliability, and PCIe expansion, provided they can accept higher power draw and an end-of-life status.