AMD Ryzen 5 4600HS vs Intel Xeon E-2246G Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2246G and the AMD Ryzen 5 4600HS are two 6-core, 12-thread processors from entirely different design philosophies: one is an 80 W workstation part on Intel's 14 nm Coffee Lake architecture, the other a 35 W mobile chip built on TSMC's 7 nm Zen 2-based Renoir silicon. The database shows them landing in nearly the same overall performance band, with average benchmark scores of 3492 for the Xeon and 3444 for the Ryzen, a gap of roughly one percent. Yet the per-test breakdown reveals a sharp split: AMD sweeps all six Cinebench runs while Intel dominates both Geekbench entries by double digits. That tension is the story of this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: They are effectively tied. The Xeon E-2246G averages 3492 across the recorded database against 3444 for the Ryzen 5 4600HS, a difference of about one percent. The Xeon sits in the 55th percentile of all CPUs in the database; the Ryzen sits in the 54th.

Q: Who wins in Cinebench?

A: The Ryzen 5 4600HS wins every Cinebench test recorded. Its margins are 3.7 percent in R15 multi-core (1226 vs 1181), 4 percent in R15 single-core (173 vs 166), 3.7 percent in R20 multi-core (5111 vs 4922), 3.7 percent in R20 single-core (721 vs 694), 3.7 percent in R23 multi-core (12171 vs 11720), and 3.7 percent in R23 single-core (1718 vs 1654).

Q: Who wins in Geekbench?

A: The Xeon E-2246G wins both Geekbench tests decisively: 16.6 percent ahead in multi-core (5988 vs 5135) and 24.7 percent ahead in single-core (1613 vs 1293).

Q: Do both chips have the same core count?

A: Yes. Both offer 6 cores and 12 threads, which is why their multi-core results cluster so closely and why cache, node, and clock differences carry the explanatory weight.

Q: Which chip is more power efficient?

A: On paper the Ryzen 5 4600HS, with a 35 W TDP versus 80 W for the Xeon, while still matching or beating it in every Cinebench run. That efficiency is the defining trait of its 7 nm Renoir design.

Q: Which CPUs are these two closest to in the database?

A: The Xeon's nearest rivals by average score are the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 (3494, delta 0 percent), the Intel Xeon D-1732TE (3486, delta 0.2 percent), the Intel Core i9-9900T (3499, delta -0.2 percent), and the Intel Core i9-10900TE (3484, delta 0.2 percent). The Ryzen's closest peers are the Intel Core i7-5960X (3442, delta 0 percent), the Intel Core i7-10870H (3446, delta -0.1 percent), the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G (3441, delta 0.1 percent), and the AMD Ryzen 5 5600HS (3447, delta -0.1 percent).

Architecture Differences

The two processors could hardly come from more divergent backgrounds. The Xeon E-2246G is a Coffee Lake-S WS design, part of the Xeon E-2200 series, fabricated on Intel's own 14 nm process with a 154 mm² die. The Ryzen 5 4600HS is a Renoir chip from AMD's 4000 series, built on TSMC's 7 nm node with a 156 mm² die packing 9,800 million transistors. Nearly identical die areas, but the 7 nm process lets AMD place far more circuitry in the same footprint while running at less than half the TDP.

Cache hierarchies differ meaningfully. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 per core, but the Ryzen doubles L2 to 512 KB per core versus 256 KB per core on the Xeon. The Xeon counters with a larger shared L3: 12 MB against 8 MB. Clock behavior also splits. The Xeon runs a 3.60 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost; the Ryzen runs 3.00 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. The Xeon's frequency advantage on paper helps explain its Geekbench single-core dominance despite the older node.

Platform features diverge along market-segment lines. The Xeon, aimed at servers and workstations, supports ECC memory, which the Ryzen lacks. It uses Intel Socket 1151 with PCIe Gen 3 at 16 lanes from the CPU, carries the HD Graphics P630 integrated GPU, and had a launch MSRP of $311. The Ryzen targets mobile, uses AMD Socket FP6, lists PCIe Gen 3 support, and integrates Radeon RX Vega 6 graphics. Both support dual-channel DDR4, but the Ryzen's memory bandwidth is recorded at 68.3 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s for the Xeon. Production status also matters: the Xeon is end-of-life, while the Ryzen remains active. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data splits cleanly into two camps. In rendering, the Ryzen 5 4600HS is unbeaten. Every Cinebench result favors AMD by a nearly identical margin of 3.7 to 4 percent, in both single-core and multi-core variants. The consistency is striking: 1226 vs 1181 in R15 multi-core, 5111 vs 4922 in R20 multi-core, and 12171 vs 11720 in R23 multi-core all land at the same 3.7 percent delta. Single-core follows suit, with the Ryzen scoring 173, 721, and 1718 in R15, R20, and R23 respectively against the Xeon's 166, 694, and 1654. Sustained rendering throughput per watt clearly belongs to the 7 nm chip, which delivers these wins at a 35 W TDP against the Xeon's 80 W.

Geekbench tells the opposite story, and by much larger margins. The Xeon takes multi-core 5988 to 5135, a 16.6 percent lead, and single-core 1613 to 1293, a 24.7 percent lead. That single-core gap aligns with the Xeon's higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.00 GHz on the Ryzen, and it suggests Geekbench's shorter, burstier workloads play to the Coffee Lake chip's frequency headroom rather than the Renoir chip's efficiency. The divergence between the two suites is the key analytical takeaway: workload type, not raw capability, decides the winner here.

In aggregate the head-to-head record stands at 6 wins for the Ryzen and 2 for the Xeon, yet the average scores nearly cancel out (3492 vs 3444) because the Xeon's two Geekbench wins are large enough to offset six smaller Cinebench losses. Both chips sit within one percentile point of each other against the full database population.

The Verdict

For sustained rendering workloads, the data favors the Ryzen 5 4600HS: six consecutive Cinebench wins at a consistent 3.7 to 4 percent margin, delivered at less than half the TDP of its rival. For bursty application workloads resembling Geekbench, the Xeon E-2246G is the clear pick, holding leads of 16.6 percent multi-core and 24.7 percent single-core.

Beyond raw scores, the feature set decides many use cases. Workstation and server deployments that require ECC memory have only one option here, since the Ryzen lacks ECC support. Buyers needing a platform that is still in active production will also find the Xeon's end-of-life status a limitation, while the Ryzen remains an active part. On the other hand, the Ryzen's higher recorded memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s and its mobile-oriented 35 W envelope make it the efficiency choice. Neither chip offers an unlocked multiplier, so tuning headroom is off the table for both.

Specification Differences

• Base clock: 3.60 GHz (Xeon) vs 3.00 GHz (Ryzen)
• Boost clock: 4.80 GHz (Xeon) vs 4.00 GHz (Ryzen)
• TDP: 80 W (Xeon) vs 35 W (Ryzen)
• Process node: 14 nm, Intel foundry (Xeon) vs 7 nm, TSMC foundry (Ryzen)
• Transistors: not recorded for Xeon; 9,800 million for Ryzen
• Die size: 154 mm² (Xeon) vs 156 mm² (Ryzen)
• L2 cache: 256 KB per core (Xeon) vs 512 KB per core (Ryzen)
• L3 cache: 12 MB shared (Xeon) vs 8 MB shared (Ryzen)
• Memory bandwidth: 42.7 GB/s (Xeon) vs 68.3 GB/s (Ryzen)
• ECC memory: supported (Xeon) vs not supported (Ryzen)
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 lanes CPU-only (Xeon) vs Gen 3 (Ryzen)
• Integrated graphics: HD Graphics P630 (Xeon) vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1151 (Xeon) vs AMD Socket FP6 (Ryzen)
• Market segment: Server/Workstation (Xeon) vs Mobile (Ryzen)
• Production status: End-of-life (Xeon) vs Active (Ryzen)
• Launch MSRP: $311 for the Xeon; not recorded for the Ryzen