AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS vs Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS and Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 are evenly matched in overall average benchmark scores, with the AMD part at 3122 and the Intel part at 3082, a difference of just 1.3%. However, the head-to-head results reveal a stark generational split: the Ryzen 5 6600HS dominates in Cinebench R15, while the Xeon E5-1660 v3 takes the lead in Cinebench R23. This makes the choice entirely dependent on the workload, as the two processors are optimized for different eras of computing.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic separation occurs in Cinebench R15. In the multicore test, the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS scores 1656 against the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3's 1074, a massive 54.2% advantage. The single-core R15 result is even more lopsided in AMD's favor, with scores of 235 versus 151, representing a 55.6% lead. These are not marginal wins; the Ryzen 5 6600HS is in a completely different performance class in this legacy benchmark, nearly doubling the Xeon's single-thread output.

The tables turn completely in Cinebench R23. Here, the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 posts a multicore score of 10656, beating the Ryzen 5 6600HS's 9131 by 14.3%. The single-core R23 result is much closer, with the Xeon edging out a 1504 to 1465 win, a slim 2.6% margin. This reversal is striking: the Xeon, despite its older architecture, manages to outperform the Ryzen part in the newer benchmark suite, particularly in the heavily threaded multicore test where its 8 cores and 16 threads can flex.

The benchmark results are split exactly 2-2, with each processor claiming two wins. The wins are not distributed evenly in magnitude; the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS wins are blowouts (54.2% and 55.6%), while the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3's wins are more modest (14.3% and 2.6%). The average benchmark score, which places both at the 52nd percentile of all CPUs, confirms that these are mid-pack performers globally, but their head-to-head behavior is anything but average.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS is the clear winner for older software and single-threaded workloads. Its 55.6% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core is a decisive indicator that applications built around older rendering engines or single-threaded logic will run significantly faster on the AMD chip. The Ryzen's 54.2% lead in R15 multicore also shows that even in older multi-threaded tasks, the AMD architecture's efficiency wins out, likely due to its much higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz compared to the Xeon's 3.50 GHz.

The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 takes the crown for modern multi-threaded rendering. Its 14.3% victory in Cinebench R23 multicore is directly attributable to its core and thread advantage (8 cores/16 threads versus 6 cores/12 threads). For users running current versions of Cinebench or similar modern rendering workloads that scale well with core count, the Xeon's additional two cores provide a tangible benefit. The Xeon also wins the modern single-core test, though the 2.6% margin is small enough to be considered a negligible real-world difference.

The split is clean: the Ryzen 5 6600HS wins where clock speed and IPC matter most in older tests, while the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 wins where raw core count matters in the newest tests. The AMD's 52nd percentile and the Intel's 52nd percentile average benchmark scores indicate they are equivalent in aggregate, but the distribution of wins shows they are not interchangeable for specific tasks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is enormous, spanning three process generations. The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS uses the Zen 3+ architecture, codenamed Rembrandt, built on a 6 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, codenamed Haswell-EP, built on a 22 nm process by Intel. This process difference alone explains much of the performance-per-watt gap, though the power figures are not compared here.

The cache layouts diverge significantly. The Ryzen 5 6600HS has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon E5-1660 v3 has the same 64 KB L1 per core, but only 256 KB of L2 per core, and a larger 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 advantage for the Xeon helps in its R23 multicore performance, while the doubled L2 cache on the AMD part likely contributes to its single-core superiority.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The Ryzen 5 6600HS supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, delivering 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon E5-1660 v3 supports DDR4 on a quad-channel bus, delivering 68.3 GB/s. Despite having fewer channels, the AMD part's newer DDR5 standard gives it a 12.4% bandwidth advantage. The Xeon also supports ECC memory while the Ryzen does not, and the Xeon has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus the Ryzen's 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes.

The integrated graphics situation is binary: the Ryzen 5 6600HS includes a Radeon 660M iGPU, while the Xeon E5-1660 v3 has no integrated graphics whatsoever. The Ryzen is a mobile part on the AMD Socket FP7, while the Xeon is a server/workstation part on Intel Socket 2011-3. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the Ryzen is still active in production.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ by two cores and four threads: the Ryzen 5 6600HS has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Xeon E5-1660 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads. Clock speeds favor the AMD part substantially, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and boost of 4.50 GHz, compared to the Xeon's 3.00 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The TDP is a stark contrast: the Ryzen is rated at 35 watts, while the Xeon is rated at 140 watts.

The process nodes are generations apart: 6 nm for the AMD (TSMC) versus 22 nm for the Intel (Intel). The Xeon has known transistor and die size figures of 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die; the Ryzen's transistor count is not listed, but its die size is 208 mm². Memory support differs as noted: DDR5 dual-channel for the AMD versus DDR4 quad-channel for the Intel.

The Xeon E5-1660 v3 has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, while the Ryzen 5 6600HS is locked. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Ryzen does not. The Xeon has a release date of September 7, 2014, while the Ryzen's release date is not listed. The Xeon is marked end-of-life, while the Ryzen is active. The Xeon's part number is SR20N; the Ryzen's is 100-000000546100-000000562. The Xeon is a server/workstation part; the Ryzen is mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, which is 1.00 GHz higher than the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3's 3.50 GHz boost clock.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 scores 10656, which is 14.3% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS's score of 9131 in this test.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS has a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, which is higher than the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3's 68.3 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS has 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile globally?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS and the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 are at the 52nd percentile of all CPUs.

The Verdict

For users running legacy applications or single-threaded software, the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS is the definitive choice. Its 55.6% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core and 54.2% lead in R15 multicore are overwhelming, driven by its 4.50 GHz boost clock and modern Zen 3+ architecture. This processor also offers integrated graphics, DDR5 memory support, and a 35-watt TDP, making it suitable for compact, power-efficient mobile systems where those features matter.

For users running modern multi-threaded rendering workloads, the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 is the better pick. Its 14.3% win in Cinebench R23 multicore comes from its 8 cores and 16 threads, which outnumber the Ryzen's 6 cores and 12 threads. The Xeon also offers ECC memory support, 40 PCIe lanes, an unlocked multiplier, and a larger 20 MB L3 cache, making it a more capable workstation platform for those who need server-grade reliability and expansion.

The data does not support a single universal winner. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical (3122 vs 3082), and the head-to-head record is tied at 2-2. The deciding factor is the workload: choose the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS for older software and single-thread performance, or choose the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 for modern multi-core rendering and workstation features. The Xeon's end-of-life status and 140-watt TDP are drawbacks, but its core advantage in current benchmarks is undeniable.