AMD Ryzen 5 5625U vs Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 Comparison

# AMD Ryzen 5 5625U vs Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3

The AMD Ryzen 5 5625U and Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 represent two very different eras and market segments, yet both land at the 52nd percentile among all CPUs. The Ryzen is a modern 7nm mobile part with a 15W TDP, while the Xeon is a 22nm server/workstation chip with a 75W TDP and an eight-core, sixteen-thread configuration. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 3096 for the AMD versus 3066 for the Intel — but the way they get there could not be more different. The data shows a clear split: the Ryzen dominates in older Cinebench R15 workloads, while the Xeon takes newer R23 tests.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 5625U is the clear winner in Cinebench R15, both multi-core and single-core. In the R15 multi-core test, the Ryzen scores 1447 against the Xeon's 1068, a 35.5% advantage. Single-core R15 is even more lopsided: 223 versus 150, a 48.7% lead for the AMD part. These results reflect the Ryzen's much higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus the Xeon's 3.40 GHz, and the generational leap in single-thread efficiency from Zen 3.

The Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 flips the script in Cinebench R23. In multi-core R23, the Xeon scores 10601 against the Ryzen's 8290, a 21.8% win. The Xeon also takes single-core R23, scoring 1496 versus 1379, a 7.8% edge. This reversal is notable because the Ryzen's newer architecture does not automatically guarantee superiority in every workload; the Xeon's eight cores and sixteen threads, combined with 20 MB of shared L3 cache, give it a sustained throughput advantage in the more demanding R23 test.

For users deciding between them, the choice depends on workload. The Ryzen 5 5625U is better suited for tasks that benefit from high clock speeds and modern IPC, such as older legacy benchmarks or lightly threaded applications. The Xeon E5-2618L v3, with its higher core count and larger cache, pulls ahead in modern multi-threaded rendering workloads like Cinebench R23. The head-to-head tally is a perfect split at two wins apiece.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from vastly different manufacturing and design eras. The AMD Ryzen 5 5625U uses the Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC, with a codename of Barcelo. It packs 10,700 million transistors into a 180 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 uses the Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-EP, on Intel's 22 nm process, with 2,600 million transistors on a much larger 356 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: AMD fits over four times as many transistors into roughly half the die area.

Core and cache configurations differ significantly. The Ryzen has 6 cores and 12 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Xeon has 8 cores and 16 threads, with 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's per-core L2 is half the size of the Ryzen's, but its overall L3 is 25% larger.

Memory support also diverges. Both support DDR4, but the Ryzen uses a dual-channel memory bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon uses quad-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is another differentiator: the Ryzen offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon offers Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), making the Xeon far more capable for expansion-heavy server and workstation builds.

The integrated graphics situation is one-sided. The Ryzen 5 5625U includes Radeon Vega 7 integrated graphics, while the Xeon E5-2618L v3 has no integrated graphics at all. This makes the Ryzen a self-contained mobile solution, whereas the Xeon requires a discrete GPU for any display output.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5625U boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 boosts to 3.40 GHz. The Ryzen's 0.90 GHz advantage explains its dominance in single-threaded Cinebench R15.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, compared to the AMD Ryzen 5 5625U's 6 cores and 12 threads. The Xeon uses its two extra cores to win the Cinebench R23 multi-core test.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ryzen 5 5625U has an average benchmark score of 3096, while the Xeon E5-2618L v3 scores 3066. The difference is just 30 points, or roughly 1%, putting both CPUs at the 52nd percentile among all processors.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 5 5625U and the Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 support ECC memory. However, the Xeon uses a quad-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen uses dual-channel with 51.2 GB/s.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen 5 5625U has integrated graphics, featuring Radeon Vega 7. The Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 has no integrated graphics, requiring a separate GPU for display output.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5625U has a TDP of 15 watts, typical for a mobile processor. The Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 has a TDP of 75 watts, reflecting its server/workstation heritage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 5625U | Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 75 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP6 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Haswell |

| Codename | Barcelo | Haswell-EP |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 10,700 million | 2,600 million |

| Die Size | 180 mm² | 356 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache (shared) | 16 MB | 20 MB |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes | Gen 3, 40 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Vega 7 | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2022-01-05 | 2014-09-07 |

| Part Number | 100-000000583 | SR200 |

The two chips share the same base clock of 2.30 GHz, both support DDR4 and ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon carries a launch MSRP of $779; the Ryzen has no listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data reveals a fascinating generational split. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen 5 5625U delivers a score of 1447 against the Xeon's 1068, a decisive 35.5% victory. The margin is even wider in R15 single-core, where the Ryzen's 223 score beats the Xeon's 150 by 48.7%. These are the largest deltas in the entire comparison, and they point squarely at the Ryzen's architectural efficiency and higher boost clock.

The Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 strikes back in Cinebench R23. In the multi-core test, the Xeon scores 10601 versus the Ryzen's 8290, a 21.8% margin. This is the single biggest absolute score difference in the head-to-head set — a swing of over 2,300 points. The Xeon's eight cores and sixteen threads, combined with its 20 MB of L3 cache, allow it to sustain higher throughput in this more demanding workload. The single-core R23 test is closer, with the Xeon winning 1496 to 1379, a 7.8% edge.

What is striking is how the two processors trade places depending on the benchmark generation. The Ryzen 5 5625U wins the R15 tests by huge margins, while the Xeon wins the R23 tests by smaller but still significant margins. The average benchmark scores reflect this balance: the Ryzen averages 3096, the Xeon 3066, a difference of just 30 points. Each processor's nearest rivals reinforce this parity — the Ryzen sits within 0.5% of the Intel Xeon W-2133, Core i7-8700B, Xeon E5-1660 v3, and Core i3-13100TE, while the Xeon is within 0.4% of the Ryzen 7 4980U, Ryzen 7 1800X, Ryzen 3 PRO 7330U, and Core i7-6850K.

For the buyer, the message is clear: the Ryzen 5 5625U is a modern mobile powerhouse with excellent single-thread performance and integrated graphics, while the Xeon E5-2618L v3 remains a capable server chip with more cores, more PCIe lanes, and quad-channel memory. Neither dominates the other outright; their strengths are complementary and workload-dependent.