AMD Ryzen 5 3400G vs Intel Xeon E-2224G Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits this comparison into two distinct narratives. The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G dominates the Cinebench suite, winning all six recorded Cinebench tests across R15, R20, and R23, while the Intel Xeon E-2224G takes both Geekbench tests. That split defines the use case: the Ryzen part is the stronger choice for threaded rendering workloads, while the Xeon pulls ahead in Geekbench's mixed workload scoring.

The Ryzen 5 3400G's wins are consistent in relative terms, landing between 18.3% and 18.9% ahead of the Xeon in every Cinebench test. This uniformity suggests a structural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Xeon's Geekbench victories are more dramatic in single-core, where it leads by 39.4%, but its multi-core Geekbench win is a narrower 15.2%. For users prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering, the AMD part is the clear choice. For users whose workloads resemble Geekbench's mix, the Intel part holds the edge.

The database also places both CPUs at the 46th percentile among all recorded processors, meaning they occupy the same overall performance tier despite their divergent benchmark profiles. The Xeon's average benchmark score is 2117, while the Ryzen's is 2059, a gap of roughly 2.8%. That overall average flatters the Xeon slightly because Geekbench scores weigh heavily in the average, but the Cinebench results tell a different story. The Ryzen's nearest rival, the Intel Core i3-10105T, sits within 0.1% of its average score, while the Xeon's closest competitor, the Intel Atom C5125, is within 0.2%. Both chips are firmly mid-pack, but they achieve that position through different strengths.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Xeon E-2224G is built on Coffee Lake, specifically the Coffee Lake-S WS variant, using Intel's 14 nm process. It is a 4-core, 4-thread part with no simultaneous multithreading. The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G uses the Zen+ architecture under the Picasso codename, fabricated on GlobalFoundries' 12 nm process, and it packs 4 cores with 8 threads thanks to SMT. The process node difference is small, 14 nm versus 12 nm, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: the Ryzen integrates 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, while the Xeon's die size is 126 mm².

Cache configurations also differ. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen counters with 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's larger L3 pool is notable for a 4-core part, though the Ryzen's larger per-core L1 and L2 compensate in some workloads. The Ryzen's die is built by GlobalFoundries, while the Xeon is fabricated in Intel fabs.

Integrated graphics differ substantially. The Xeon includes HD Graphics P630, a modest GPU aimed at basic display output. The Ryzen 5 3400G carries Radeon RX Vega 11, a much more capable integrated solution. The memory bandwidth figures also favor the Ryzen: 46.9 GB/s versus the Xeon's 42.7 GB/s, both over dual-channel DDR4. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Ryzen. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Ryzen lists Gen 3 without a lane count. The Xeon targets the server and workstation segment, while the Ryzen is a desktop part. The Xeon's multiplier is locked, whereas the Ryzen's multiplier is unlocked for overclocking. The Xeon is marked end-of-life, while the Ryzen remains active in production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are unambiguous. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen scores 789 against the Xeon's 644, a 18.4% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows the Ryzen at 111 versus 90, an 18.9% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: the Ryzen posts 3290, the Xeon 2687, a 18.3% gap. The R20 single-core test also lands at 18.3%, with the Ryzen at 464 and the Xeon at 379. Cinebench R23 multi-core sees the Ryzen reach 7835 versus 6398, another 18.3% margin, while R23 single-core shows 1106 against 903, an 18.4% gap.

The Geekbench results flip the script. In Geekbench multi-core, the Xeon scores 4299 against the Ryzen's 3731, a 15.2% advantage. The single-core Geekbench test is the Xeon's largest win anywhere: 1535 versus 1101, a 39.4% margin. That single-core Geekbench result is striking because the Ryzen leads the Xeon in every Cinebench single-core test by roughly 18%. The divergence suggests the two benchmarks stress different aspects of the processor, with Cinebench favoring the Ryzen's higher base clock and SMT, while Geekbench's single-core test appears to reward the Xeon's higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz against the Ryzen's 4.20 GHz.

The Xeon's boost clock advantage is substantial, 0.5 GHz higher than the Ryzen's, yet it only translates into a Geekbench single-core win. The Ryzen's base clock is higher at 3.70 GHz versus 3.50 GHz, which may help in sustained all-core workloads. The TDP figures favor the Ryzen at 65 watts against the Xeon's 71 watts, a modest difference that slightly favors the AMD part for power-constrained systems.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The core count is identical at 4, but the thread count differs: the Xeon has 4 threads, the Ryzen has 8. Base clocks are close, 3.50 GHz for the Xeon and 3.70 GHz for the Ryzen, but boost clocks diverge more meaningfully at 4.70 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. The TDP is 71 watts for the Xeon and 65 watts for the Ryzen. Sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151, the Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4.

The process node differs (14 nm Intel versus 12 nm GlobalFoundries), as does the architecture generation: Coffee Lake-S WS against Zen+ Picasso. The Ryzen lists 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, while the Xeon lists a 126 mm² die with no transistor count recorded. Cache sizes differ at every level: L1 is 64 KB per core on the Xeon versus 96 KB per core on the Ryzen; L2 is 256 KB per core versus 512 KB per core; L3 is 8 MB shared versus 4 MB shared. Memory bandwidth favors the Ryzen at 46.9 GB/s against 42.7 GB/s. ECC support exists only on the Xeon. The integrated GPU is HD Graphics P630 on the Intel side and Radeon RX Vega 11 on the AMD side.

The Ryzen is unlocked for overclocking; the Xeon is not. The Xeon's market segment is server and workstation, while the Ryzen is desktop. Production status differs: the Xeon is end-of-life, the Ryzen is active. The Xeon launched on May 28, 2019, with a launch MSRP of $213; the Ryzen launched on July 6, 2019, with a launch MSRP of $149. The Ryzen's part numbers are YD3400C5M4MFH and YD3400C5FHBOX, while the Xeon's part number is SRFAW.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G scores 7835 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Xeon E-2224G scores 6398, giving the Ryzen an 18.3% advantage.

Q: How large is the Xeon's single-core Geekbench lead?

A: The Xeon E-2224G scores 1535 in Geekbench single-core versus 1101 for the Ryzen 5 3400G, a 39.4% margin, the largest recorded difference in any benchmark between these two chips.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 3400G support ECC memory?

A: No. The Ryzen 5 3400G does not support ECC memory, while the Intel Xeon E-2224G does, reflecting the Xeon's server and workstation positioning.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2224G boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G boosts to 4.20 GHz. The Ryzen has the higher base clock at 3.70 GHz versus 3.50 GHz.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel Xeon E-2224G does not.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E-2224G has an average benchmark score of 2117, and the Ryzen 5 3400G has an average of 2059. Both sit at the 46th percentile among all recorded CPUs.