AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 vs Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. It leads in both multicore and single-core workloads across R15, R20, and R23 versions, with the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 recording zero wins.

Q: How close are the average benchmark scores between the two CPUs?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 has an average benchmark score of 2283, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 sits at 2246. That is a difference of 37 points, or roughly 1.6 percent — a narrow margin that shows the two are in the same performance tier.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor?

A: Both processors land at the 47th percentile when compared to all CPUs in the database. Despite coming from different eras and architectures, they occupy identical positions in the overall performance distribution.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon doubles the thread count, yet its multicore benchmark advantage remains surprisingly small.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor based on average score?

A: For the Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3, the nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon D-1557 (2282, 0 percent delta), Intel Core i3-10305 (2264, 0.8 percent), Intel Core i5-10400H (2303, -0.9 percent), and Intel Core i7-8809G (2307, -1.1 percent). For the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-10710U (2248, -0.1 percent), Intel Core i5-9400 (2254, -0.4 percent), Intel Xeon D-1715TER (2238, 0.4 percent), and Intel Core i7-1068NG7 (2259, -0.6 percent).

Q: When were these two processors released, and what is their production status?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 was released in September 2014 and is end-of-life. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 was released in June 2017 and remains active in production.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 is built on the Haswell-EP architecture using a 22 nm process node at Intel's foundry. It packs 2,600 million transistors into a 356 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 uses the Zen architecture (Summit Ridge) fabricated on a 14 nm node by GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a much smaller 192 mm² die. The Zen design achieves higher transistor density despite the larger process node, a reflection of architectural differences rather than manufacturing superiority.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 counters with 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 16 MB of shared L3. The per-core L1 and L2 advantages on the AMD side suggest a design that favors individual core performance, while the Xeon's larger shared L3 pool benefits multi-threaded workloads that reuse common data.

Memory support also separates the two. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 across a quad-channel memory bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 supports only DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure listed in the data. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 does not — a defining feature for server and workstation use.

The Xeon offers PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, a critical feature for multi-GPU or high-density storage configurations. The Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 has no PCIe lane count listed. The Xeon's multiplier is locked, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 has an unlocked multiplier, meaning the AMD part allows user-controlled overclocking. The Xeon targets the server/workstation market segment, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is a desktop part. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, and the Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 uses AMD Socket AM4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 takes every single head-to-head benchmark, but the margins are remarkably consistent and narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 795 against the Ryzen's 782, a 1.7 percent advantage. The single-core R15 result tells the same story: 112 versus 110, a 1.8 percent lead for Intel.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Xeon posts 3315 in multicore versus 3261 for the Ryzen, again a 1.7 percent delta. Single-core R20 shows 467 versus 460, a 1.5 percent edge. The consistency across these tests is noteworthy — the Xeon's advantage hovers between 1.5 and 1.8 percent regardless of which Cinebench version or core count is stressed.

Cinebench R23 multicore delivers the largest absolute gap: 7893 for the Xeon versus 7766 for the Ryzen, a 1.6 percent difference. In R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 1114 and the Ryzen 1096, another 1.6 percent margin. The fact that the Xeon wins single-core tests despite having a lower base clock (2.40 GHz versus 3.50 GHz) and lower boost clock (3.20 GHz versus 3.70 GHz) is a striking result. It suggests the Haswell architecture extracts more instructions per clock in this specific workload, or that the benchmark responds to other factors like memory bandwidth or cache behavior.

The multicore results are even more intriguing given the core disparity. The Xeon has 8 cores and 16 threads; the Ryzen has 4 cores and 8 threads. Doubling the thread count yields only a 1.6 to 1.7 percent improvement in Cinebench multicore scores. This suggests that the Ryzen 5 PRO 1500's Zen cores are substantially more efficient per thread in this benchmark, or that the Cinebench workload does not scale effectively beyond a certain thread count on the Xeon's architecture.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for the Xeon and 3.50 GHz for the Ryzen. Boost clocks are 3.20 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. The Xeon has a TDP of 85 watts; the Ryzen draws 65 watts.

Process node: 22 nm for Intel versus 14 nm for AMD. Transistor count: 2,600 million versus 4,800 million. Die size: 356 mm² versus 192 mm². Cache configurations diverge: the Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3; the Ryzen has 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3.

Memory support differs, with the Xeon accepting both DDR3 and DDR4 over a quad-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen accepts only DDR4 over a dual-channel bus with no listed bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not the Ryzen. The Xeon provides PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes; the Ryzen has no PCIe data listed. The Xeon's multiplier is locked; the Ryzen's is unlocked. Sockets differ: Intel Socket 2011-3 versus AMD Socket AM4. Market segments differ: server/workstation versus desktop. Production status: end-of-life versus active. Release dates: September 2014 versus June 2017.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its advantages are most pronounced in single-core performance where it leads by 1.5 to 1.8 percent despite lower clock speeds. The Xeon also wins all multicore tests, but by similarly narrow margins. The Xeon's ECC memory support and quad-channel memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for server and workstation environments where data integrity and memory throughput are critical. Its 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes support expansive I/O configurations, and its 20 MB L3 cache provides ample shared storage for multi-threaded server workloads.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 wins no benchmarks, yet the data suggests scenarios where it could be the better fit. Its 65-watt TDP versus the Xeon's 85 watts means lower power draw in comparable workloads. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, which could close or reverse the small single-core gaps in user-controlled environments. The Ryzen's higher base and boost clocks (3.50 GHz and 3.70 GHz versus 2.40 GHz and 3.20 GHz) indicate it can deliver strong per-core performance in lightly threaded tasks. Its smaller die size and active production status suggest it remains a viable, current platform choice for desktop builds.

The nearest rival data places both processors in the same performance neighborhood. The Xeon's closest competitors include the Intel Core i3-10305 and Core i5-10400H, while the Ryzen sits alongside the Intel Core i5-9400 and Core i7-10710U. The Xeon's average score of 2283 slightly exceeds the Ryzen's 2246, but both occupy the 47th percentile overall.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow win for the Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 across all measured benchmarks. Every Cinebench test — R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multicore — shows the Xeon ahead by margins between 1.5 and 1.8 percent. The Xeon's 8-core, 16-thread configuration versus the Ryzen's 4-core, 8-thread layout should produce a larger multicore gap, but the benchmarks reveal that the Ryzen's Zen architecture nearly compensates for half the thread count. This confirms per-core efficiency on the AMD side.

The Xeon is the better choice for server and workstation deployments requiring ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, and extensive PCIe connectivity. Its 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are features the Ryzen simply does not offer. The Xeon's end-of-life status, however, means it is a legacy platform. The Ryzen 5 PRO 1500, while losing every benchmark, remains an active, current product with a 65-watt TDP, unlocked multiplier, and higher clock speeds. For a desktop user who values low power consumption, overclocking headroom, and a modern socket, the Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 presents a compelling case despite its benchmark deficit.

The 47th percentile ranking for both processors underscores their equivalence in the broader CPU landscape. The Xeon edges ahead in raw performance, but the Ryzen counters with efficiency, flexibility, and continued availability. The choice hinges on whether the workload demands server-class features or desktop adaptability. For pure Cinebench performance, the Xeon wins every time. For platform longevity and power efficiency, the Ryzen remains a strong contender.