AMD Ryzen 5 2600H vs Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 Comparison

The recorded data places the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H in the same performance tier, with both processors holding a 44th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database. Their average benchmark scores are remarkably close, with the Intel part posting 1991 points against 1967 for the AMD part, a difference of roughly one percent. The head-to-head results confirm this pattern: the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 wins all six recorded comparisons, but every margin is narrow, ranging from 1.0% to 1.2%. This is not a case of one processor dominating another, it is a case of two chips trading blows within a very tight band of performance, differentiated more by platform characteristics than by raw compute output.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Across the entire Cinebench suite, the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 maintains a consistent, if slender, lead. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Intel chip scores 693 against 685 for the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H, a delta of 1.2%. The single-core version of the same test shows a nearly identical story, with scores of 97 and 96 respectively, giving Intel a 1% advantage. These margins are small enough to be considered within normal run-to-run variance for many workloads, but the consistency of the pattern across all three Cinebench generations is notable.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result again favors Intel by 1.2%, with scores of 2891 versus 2856. The single-core R20 test shows Intel ahead by 1%, scoring 407 to AMD's 403. The most recent Cinebench R23 results repeat the established trend. In multi-core, the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 scores 6884, while the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H scores 6801, another 1.2% gap. Single-core R23 performance lands at 971 for Intel and 960 for AMD, a 1.1% difference.

The data shows a clear sweep for the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 across all six benchmark entries, but the magnitude of each win is uniform and minor. The largest advantage any single test reveals is the 1.2% multi-core margin, which appears three times. The smallest is the 1% single-core margin in R15 and R20. The average benchmark score comparison reinforces this view, with the Intel part's 1991 average sitting just 1.2% above the AMD part's 1967 average. In practical terms, a user moving from one of these processors to the other would be unlikely to perceive the difference in everyday applications, as the performance envelope is effectively identical.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 records a score of 6884 in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, which is 1.2% higher than the 6801 scored by the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H.

Q: How does the single-core performance compare between the two chips?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 wins every single-core test in the database. In Cinebench R23, it scores 971 versus 960 for the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H, a 1.1% advantage. The R15 and R20 single-core tests show the same trend, with Intel leading by 1% in both.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 has an average benchmark score of 1991, while the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H trails slightly with an average score of 1967.

Q: Do both processors occupy the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H are recorded at the 44th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor is the nearest rival to the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 in terms of average score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 1500X is the closest rival, with an average score of 1992, a 0% delta from the Intel part's 1991. The Intel Core i7-7920HQ also matches at 1992, with a delta of -0.1%.

Q: What is the primary performance difference in the head-to-head results?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The margins range from 1.0% to 1.2%, with the most common delta being 1.2% in the three multi-core tests.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a straightforward, if unexciting, conclusion. The Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 is the faster processor in every recorded test, but its advantage over the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H is consistently around one percent. For users prioritizing the absolute highest Cinebench scores, the Intel part is the correct choice based on these measurements. It wins the multi-core and single-core tests across all three Cinebench versions, and its average benchmark score is higher.

However, the selection between these two parts should not rest on performance alone, as the data shows them to be effectively equivalent in compute throughput. The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H is the newer part, released in 2018, and remains in active production, while the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 is end-of-life, having been released in 2015. The AMD chip also comes with a lower TDP of 45 watts versus 65 watts for the Intel chip, and it supports DDR4 memory rather than DDR3. The Intel part offers ECC memory support and a higher boost clock, but these features come within a platform that is no longer manufactured. The verdict from the recorded data is that the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 holds a slim performance lead, but the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H offers a more modern platform with lower power draw and newer memory support, making it the more sensible choice for new system builds where the performance difference is negligible.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in platform and memory support, even as their compute performance converges. The Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 operates on Intel Socket 1150, while the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H uses AMD Socket FP5. The memory support reflects the generational gap: the Intel part uses DDR3 with dual-channel operation and a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the AMD part uses DDR4 with dual-channel operation and a higher memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Intel processor supports ECC memory, whereas the AMD processor does not. The TDP also differs, with the Intel part rated at 65 watts and the AMD part at 45 watts.

The integrated graphics are distinct as well. The Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 includes Intel Iris Pro P6300, while the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H includes Radeon Vega 8. The PCIe implementation is the same generation, Gen 3, but the AMD part specifies 8 lanes for the CPU only. The Intel part has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the AMD part has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $445, and the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part number is SR2B1, and the AMD part number is YM2600C3T4MFB.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two chips is substantial, stemming from different design philosophies and manufacturing origins. The Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 is built on the Broadwell architecture, specifically the Broadwell-DT codename, using a 14 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H is built on the Zen architecture, with the Raven Ridge codename, also using a 14 nm process node, but fabricated by GlobalFoundries. Both processors feature 4 cores and 8 threads, but the cache layouts differ. The Intel part provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache.

The transistor counts and die sizes tell a story of different design priorities. The Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 contains 1,400 million transistors on a die size of 160 mm². The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H contains 4,950 million transistors on a die size of 210 mm². The AMD chip integrates its Vega graphics and a memory controller for DDR4, which accounts for its larger transistor budget. The Intel chip, despite its smaller transistor count, achieves comparable CPU performance through its higher clock speeds and larger L3 cache. The market segments differ as well, with the Intel part aimed at Server/Workstation use and the AMD part aimed at Mobile. These architectural choices explain why two chips with nearly identical benchmark scores can have such different platform requirements and feature sets.