AMD Ryzen 5 3400G vs Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all six tests by a consistent margin. The data is unambiguous: the Ryzen 5 3400G outperforms the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 across both multi-core and single-core workloads, with a uniform delta of approximately 8.4% in the Cinebench suite.

In Cinebench R15, the Ryzen 5 3400G scores 789 in multi-core versus the Xeon's 723, a difference of 8.4%. The single-core test shows the same pattern: 111 versus 102, also 8.1% in favor of AMD. This consistency carries through Cinebench R20, where the AMD part posts 3290 multi-core and 464 single-core, against Intel's 3015 and 425 respectively—again, an 8.4% gap in both tests.

Cinebench R23 confirms the trend. The Ryzen 5 3400G reaches 7835 multi-core and 1106 single-core, while the Xeon E5-2628 v3 manages 7179 and 1013. The delta remains locked at 8.4% for both metrics. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is not workload-dependent but rather a systematic advantage across the board.

The aggregate benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Xeon E5-2628 v3 averages 2076 across its tested benchmarks, placing it in the 46th percentile of all CPUs. The Ryzen 5 3400G averages 2059, also in the 46th percentile. Despite the Ryzen's sweep in direct head-to-head tests, their overall averages are nearly identical—a 0.8% difference—because the AMD part's broader benchmark set includes 3DMark and Geekbench results that pull its average down relative to the Cinebench-only comparison.

Notably, the Xeon E5-2628 v3's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon W-2123 (average score 2079, delta -0.1%), the Intel Core i3-9350KF (2082, -0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2544 (2086, -0.5%). The Ryzen 5 3400G's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-10105T (2058, +0.1%), Intel Core i7-8705G (2058, +0.1%), and AMD Ryzen 3 3100 (2055, +0.2%). Both processors sit in the same performance tier relative to their respective peer groups.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G wins all multi-core Cinebench tests: 789 vs 723 in R15, 3290 vs 3015 in R20, and 7835 vs 7179 in R23. Each result is an 8.4% advantage for AMD.

Q: Is the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 ahead in any benchmark?

A: No. In the six head-to-head benchmarks provided, the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G wins every single test. The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 has zero wins in the comparison.

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The Xeon E5-2628 v3 has an average benchmark score of 2076, while the Ryzen 5 3400G averages 2059. Both sit in the 46th percentile of all CPUs, making them statistically similar in overall performance despite the AMD sweep in direct tests.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The Ryzen 5 3400G leads by 8.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core (111 vs 102) and 8.4% in both R20 (464 vs 425) and R23 (1106 vs 1013) single-core tests.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G has 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite having half the cores, the AMD part still wins all multi-core benchmarks.

Q: Are these processors comparable in market positioning?

A: The Xeon E5-2628 v3 targets the server/workstation segment with a 85W TDP and is end-of-life, while the Ryzen 5 3400G is an active desktop part with a 65W TDP. Their percentile rankings are identical at 46, but their intended use cases differ significantly.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear sweep for the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G in benchmark performance, but context matters. The Xeon E5-2628 v3's strengths lie outside raw compute scores. It supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the Ryzen 5 3400G's dual-channel 46.9 GB/s. For memory-bound workloads where bandwidth is the bottleneck, the Xeon's architecture offers a structural advantage that the Cinebench tests do not capture.

The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature critical for error-sensitive server and workstation environments. The Ryzen 5 3400G does not support ECC. Additionally, the Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Ryzen 5 3400G lists PCIe Gen 3 without specifying lane count—a meaningful difference for multi-GPU or high-expansion server builds.

The Ryzen 5 3400G wins in every scenario where raw CPU throughput is the primary metric. Its 8.4% lead across all Cinebench versions makes it the choice for rendering, compilation, and other compute-heavy tasks. It also includes integrated Radeon RX Vega 11 graphics, which the Xeon completely lacks, enabling systems without a discrete GPU. The Ryzen's unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, while the Xeon is locked.

For desktop users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness, the Ryzen 5 3400G's 4.2 GHz boost clock versus the Xeon's 3.0 GHz boost clock translates directly to its single-core benchmark wins. The Xeon's advantage is purely in platform features: memory bandwidth, ECC, and PCIe lane count.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Xeon E5-2628 v3 packs 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen 5 3400G offers only 4 cores and 8 threads. Clock speeds favor AMD: 3.70 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost versus Intel's 2.50 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. TDP also differs, with the Xeon rated at 85W and the Ryzen at 65W.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, plus 20 MB shared L3. The Ryzen has 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, but only 4 MB shared L3. Memory support shows the Xeon's server pedigree: quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support, versus the Ryzen's dual-channel 46.9 GB/s without ECC.

Socket and platform differ completely: Intel Socket 2011-3 for the Xeon, AMD Socket AM4 for the Ryzen. The Xeon offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen simply lists PCIe Gen 3. Integrated graphics exist only on the AMD part: Radeon RX Vega 11. The Xeon has none.

Production status separates them further. The Xeon is end-of-life, released in September 2014. The Ryzen is active, released in July 2019. The Ryzen has an unlocked multiplier; the Xeon does not. Transistor counts and die sizes also differ: the Xeon uses 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die, while the Ryzen uses 4,940 million on 210 mm². The launch MSRP for the Ryzen 5 3400G was $149; no launch MSRP is listed for the Xeon.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon E5-2628 v3 is built on Intel's Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP server variant, fabricated on Intel's 22 nm process. It uses 2,600 million transistors across a 356 mm² die. The Ryzen 5 3400G employs AMD's Zen+ architecture, codenamed Picasso, on GlobalFoundries' 12 nm process, with 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die. This process advantage—12 nm versus 22 nm—contributes to the Ryzen's higher clock speeds and better power efficiency.

Cache architecture reflects their different design philosophies. The Xeon's 20 MB shared L3 cache is five times larger than the Ryzen's 4 MB, a typical server design for handling large working sets across many cores. The Ryzen's per-core L1 (96 KB) and L2 (512 KB) are larger than the Xeon's (64 KB and 256 KB), which helps its fewer cores operate more efficiently on single-threaded tasks.

The Xeon's market segment is server/workstation, reflected in its quad-channel memory controller, ECC support, and 40 PCIe lanes. The Ryzen targets desktop, with dual-channel memory, no ECC, and integrated Vega 11 graphics. The Xeon's 85W TDP with only 8 cores at 2.50 GHz base indicates a power envelope designed for sustained server loads, while the Ryzen's 65W TDP for 4 cores at 3.70 GHz base shows a focus on burst performance.

Generation and release timing also differ: the Xeon is a Haswell-EP generation part from 2014, while the Ryzen is a 3000-series Zen+ (Picasso) part from 2019. The five-year gap explains the process node advantage and the architectural improvements in IPC that let the Ryzen win despite fewer cores.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is decisive: the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G outperforms the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 in every single head-to-head test, with a consistent 8.4% margin across all Cinebench versions. For any workload measured by these benchmarks—multi-core rendering, single-core responsiveness, or anything in between—the Ryzen 5 3400G is the faster processor.

The Xeon E5-2628 v3's case rests entirely on platform features that benchmarks do not measure. Its quad-channel memory with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes make it the appropriate choice for server or workstation builds that require those capabilities. Its 8 cores and 16 threads provide a core-count advantage that the Ryzen's superior IPC cannot fully offset in the Cinebench tests, yet the Ryzen still wins those tests—evidence of the Zen+ architecture's efficiency.

Users building a desktop system, especially one that could benefit from integrated Radeon RX Vega 11 graphics or an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, should choose the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G. Its 65W TDP also makes it easier to cool and power. The Ryzen's active production status and 2019 release date mean it remains a viable modern part.

Users requiring ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, or extensive PCIe expansion should consider the Xeon E5-2628 v3 despite its performance deficit and end-of-life status. Its 20 MB L3 cache and 16 threads also serve heavily threaded server workloads better in scenarios where the benchmark suite does not apply.

The verdict is straightforward: for raw compute performance, pick the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G. For enterprise platform features, the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 retains a niche. The data favors AMD in every benchmark measured, and only specific platform requirements would justify choosing the Intel part.