CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5620 and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U represent two distinct eras of processor design, yet they land in the same performance percentile. The Xeon E5620 is a 2010-era server chip built on a 32nm Westmere architecture, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U is a 2019 mobile processor using a 14nm Zen design. Despite the 28th percentile ranking for both, their benchmark profiles reveal fundamentally different strengths. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, where the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U wins decisively, but the available benchmark suites also highlight areas where the older Xeon maintains relevance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 has an average benchmark score of 1029, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U scores 1024. The difference is minimal, placing them within 0.5% of each other overall.

Q: What is the most significant performance gap between the two in the head-to-head test?

A: In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U scores 553 compared to the Xeon E5620’s 301, giving AMD a 45.6% advantage.

Q: How do their cache configurations differ?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 offers 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 12 MB L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U does not list ECC support in its specifications.

Q: What are the thermal design power (TDP) ratings for each chip?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 has a TDP of 80 watts, whereas the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U is rated at 15 watts.

Q: What integrated graphics does the AMD processor feature?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, while the Intel Xeon E5620 has no integrated graphics listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark available, the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, with a score of 553 versus 301 for the Intel Xeon E5620. This 45.6% lead indicates a clear advantage in sustained multi-threaded workloads. The Ryzen also shows strength in single-core performance within its own benchmark suite, scoring 134 in Cinebench R15 single-core and 867 in Geekbench single-core, though no direct comparison exists for these tests.

The Intel Xeon E5620, despite losing the head-to-head, has its own benchmark wins. Its Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 1255, Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2989, and Cinebench R23 single-core score of 422 are all data points that the Ryzen cannot match, as the AMD chip lacks corresponding Cinebench R20 and R23 results. The Xeon’s Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 301 is lower, but its R20 and R23 scores suggest it scales better with newer rendering workloads.

For memory bandwidth, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U lists a specific figure of 38.4 GB/s, while the Xeon E5620 provides no such number. This makes the Ryzen the choice for bandwidth-sensitive tasks, but the Xeon’s triple-channel DDR3 support versus dual-channel DDR4 on the AMD suggests different memory architectures entirely.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon E5620 uses the Westmere-EP architecture, built on a 32nm process by Intel. It contains 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U uses the Zen architecture with the Raven Ridge codename, manufactured on a 14nm process by GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 246 mm². The transistor count for the AMD chip is not listed.

The Xeon’s cache hierarchy features a 12 MB shared L3 cache, which is three times larger than the Ryzen’s 4 MB shared L3. However, the Ryzen has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches: 96 KB and 512 KB per core, respectively, versus 64 KB and 256 KB per core on the Xeon. This suggests the Xeon relies on a larger pool of shared cache, while the Ryzen emphasizes faster per-core access.

The Xeon supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, while the Ryzen uses dual-channel DDR4 with a listed bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. PCIe support also differs: the Xeon is Gen 2, while the Ryzen offers Gen 3 with 8 lanes for the CPU. The Xeon includes ECC memory support, which is absent on the Ryzen. The Ryzen integrates Radeon Vega 8 graphics, a feature entirely missing from the Xeon.

The socket and market segment further separate them. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366 and targets the server/workstation market, while the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP5 and is designed for mobile. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life, while the Ryzen remains in active production.

Specification Differences

The most obvious differences are in clock speeds and TDP. The Intel Xeon E5620 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 2.67 GHz. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz, which converts to 2.00 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The Ryzen’s boost clock is significantly higher, offering a 34.8% advantage over the Xeon’s boost.

TDP is a stark differentiator. The Xeon draws 80 watts, while the Ryzen is rated at just 15 watts. This makes the Ryzen far more power-efficient, a critical factor for mobile devices. Process node also differs: 32nm for the Xeon versus 14nm for the Ryzen, which partially explains the efficiency gap.

Memory support, cache sizes, PCIe generation, and integrated graphics all differ as noted. The Xeon’s L3 cache is 12 MB shared, while the Ryzen has only 4 MB shared. The Xeon supports ECC memory, the Ryzen does not. The Ryzen’s memory bandwidth is explicitly listed at 38.4 GB/s, while the Xeon’s is not provided. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Ryzen features Radeon Vega 8.

Production status and release dates also differ. The Xeon was released on 2010-03-15 and is end-of-life. The Ryzen was released on 2019-01-07 and is active. The part numbers are SLBV4 for the Xeon and YM250BC4T4MFB for the Ryzen.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark is Cinebench R15 multi-core. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U scores 553, while the Intel Xeon E5620 scores 301. This yields a delta of -45.6% for the Xeon, meaning the Ryzen is 45.6% faster in this test. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the Ryzen’s newer architecture and higher boost clock translate into significantly better multi-threaded rendering performance.

However, the benchmark data also shows the Xeon’s strengths in other tests. The Xeon’s Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 1255 and R23 multi-core score of 2989 are notable, though the Ryzen has no corresponding results. Similarly, the Xeon’s R23 single-core score of 422 stands alone. The Ryzen’s Cinebench R15 single-core score of 134 and Geekbench scores of 2540 (multi-core) and 867 (single-core) are its unique data points.

The absence of overlapping benchmarks beyond R15 multi-core limits direct comparison. Yet, the available data suggests that the Xeon’s performance profile is competitive in newer Cinebench versions, while the Ryzen’s single-core scores in older tests are modest. The Ryzen’s Geekbench multi-core score of 2540 is its highest absolute number, but without a Xeon equivalent, it cannot be directly compared.

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U is the clear winner in the one head-to-head benchmark available, outperforming the Intel Xeon E5620 by 45.6% in Cinebench R15 multi-core. For any workload that resembles this test, the Ryzen is the superior choice. Its 15-watt TDP, integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, and DDR4 support with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth also make it a more modern and efficient platform for mobile or compact systems.

The Intel Xeon E5620, despite its age, retains value in specific scenarios. Its 12 MB shared L3 cache, ECC memory support, and triple-channel DDR3 architecture are features absent from the Ryzen. Its Cinebench R20 and R23 scores, while not directly comparable, indicate that it can handle newer rendering tasks. For server or workstation applications where ECC memory and large shared cache are priorities, the Xeon remains a viable option.

The data does not support a single universal recommendation. Users prioritizing multi-threaded rendering in older benchmarks should choose the Ryzen. Users needing ECC memory or a larger L3 cache should consider the Xeon. The Ryzen’s active production status and lower TDP make it the more forward-looking choice, but the Xeon’s unique feature set ensures it is not obsolete. The benchmark results indicate a tie in overall percentile, but the head-to-head win goes decisively to AMD.