AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U vs Intel Xeon W3570 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct head-to-head comparison between the Intel Xeon W3570 and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U scores 624 points against 279 points for the Intel Xeon W3570. That is a delta of -55.3% for the Intel part, meaning the AMD chip delivers more than double the multi-threaded rendering performance in this specific workload. The margin is decisive, and there is no benchmark in the shared set where the Xeon comes out ahead.

Looking beyond the single shared test, the broader benchmark records reinforce this picture. The Xeon W3570 posts scores of 1165 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, 164 in R20 single-core, 2776 in R23 multi-core, and 392 in R23 single-core. The Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U has additional results from Geekbench: 2202 multi-core and 819 single-core, plus a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 142. While the test suites do not fully overlap, the Ryzen’s Cinebench R15 multi-core advantage is the most direct apples-to-apples comparison available, and it is overwhelming.

The average benchmark score for the Xeon W3570 is 955, placing it at the 25th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U averages 947, also at the 25th percentile. Despite the massive head-to-head loss in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the two processors sit at nearly the same overall average score. This is because the Xeon’s other Cinebench results, particularly in newer R20 and R23 versions, pull its average up relative to the Ryzen, which lacks comparable results in those tests. The Ryzen’s Geekbench scores, while strong for a 15-watt mobile part, do not compensate enough to shift its average above the Xeon’s.

The nearest rivals for the Xeon W3570 include the Intel Celeron N5105 (955, 0% delta), the Intel Xeon W3550 (956, -0.1%), the AMD Athlon X4 870K (956, -0.1%), and the Intel Core i7-950 (957, -0.2%). This shows the Xeon W3570 is essentially performance-pegged to those older desktop and entry-level parts, with differences under a third of a percent. For the Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U, its nearest rivals are the Intel Pentium Gold G5400T (946, +0.1%), Intel Xeon X5560 (946, +0.1%), AMD Phenom II X6 1045T (946, +0.1%), and Intel Core i3-1110G4 (945, +0.2%). The Ryzen sits marginally above those chips, but again by less than a quarter of a percent.

The takeaway from the numbers is clear: in the one test where both CPUs ran the same workload, the Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U is dramatically faster. The Xeon’s average score is rescued by other Cinebench versions, but those are not directly comparable to the Ryzen’s results. If the question is which chip wins a multi-core render on identical software, the data says the AMD part wins by a wide margin.

The Verdict

The data points to different buyers for each processor. The Intel Xeon W3570 is a 2009-era server and workstation part with 4 cores and 8 threads, a 130-watt TDP, and DDR3 triple-channel memory support. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U is a 2019 mobile processor with 4 cores and 8 threads, a 15-watt TDP, DDR4 dual-channel memory, and integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical (955 versus 947), so on overall aggregate performance they are statistical equals. But the only direct head-to-head result shows the Ryzen at 624 versus 279, a 55.3% lead for AMD.

For a user choosing between these two based strictly on the database, the Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U is the better choice for multi-threaded Cinebench workloads. It delivers far higher performance per test result, runs at a fraction of the power envelope (15 watts versus 130 watts), and supports newer DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3. The Xeon W3570 offers ECC memory support, triple-channel memory bandwidth, and a larger shared L3 cache (8 MB versus 4 MB), which may matter for specific workstation reliability scenarios, but the benchmark data does not show any performance advantage from those features.

The Xeon is end-of-life, while the Ryzen is active. The Ryzen also has integrated graphics, so it does not require a discrete GPU for basic display output. The Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. For a new system build, the Ryzen is clearly the more sensible part. For someone maintaining a legacy Socket 1366 workstation, the Xeon remains functional, but the recorded benchmarks show it falls far behind in the one test where they overlap.

Neither chip is a standout in the broader database: both sit at the 25th percentile of all CPUs. The Ryzen’s advantage is specific to the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, not a general superiority across all workloads. Still, given the massive delta in that test and the huge difference in power consumption, the Ryzen is the better pick for most users.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon W3570 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, built on a 45 nm process at Intel. It contains 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U uses the Zen+ architecture, codenamed Picasso, built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die. The transistor count difference is enormous: the AMD chip packs nearly seven times as many transistors into a smaller die.

Both CPUs have 4 cores and 8 threads, so parallel thread counts are identical. The Xeon has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.47 GHz. The Ryzen has a lower base clock of 2.10 GHz but a higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The Ryzen’s boost advantage likely contributes to its strong multi-core result, though the architectural efficiency of Zen+ over Nehalem is also a major factor.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen provides 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and only 4 MB of shared L3. The Xeon has twice the L3 capacity, but the Ryzen has larger L1 and L2 caches per core. The Ryzen’s smaller L3 is offset by its more modern memory controller and DDR4 support.

Memory support diverges: the Xeon uses DDR3 with a triple-channel bus, while the Ryzen uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus. The Ryzen lists a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s; the Xeon does not list a bandwidth figure in the database. The Xeon supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen does not. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2, while the Ryzen uses PCIe Gen 3.

The Xeon is a server and workstation part on Intel Socket 1366, with a 130-watt TDP and no integrated graphics. The Ryzen is a mobile part on AMD Socket FP5, with a 15-watt TDP and Radeon Vega 8 integrated graphics. The Ryzen’s power draw is dramatically lower, over 8 times less than the Xeon. The Xeon’s multiplier is locked, as is the Ryzen’s, so neither offers easy overclocking through unlocked ratios.

Release dates also reflect the generational gap: the Xeon launched in March 2009, the Ryzen in April 2019, a full decade apart. The Xeon is end-of-life; the Ryzen is active. The process node difference (45 nm versus 12 nm) explains much of the efficiency and transistor density gap.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon W3570 has an average benchmark score of 955, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U scores 947. The difference is 8 points, and both sit at the 25th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U in the shared Cinebench R15 multi-core test?

A: The Ryzen scores 624 versus 279 for the Xeon, a delta of -55.3% for the Xeon. The Ryzen is more than twice as fast in that specific test.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon W3570 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon W3570 supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U does not support ECC memory.

Q: What integrated graphics does the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U have?

A: The Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U includes Radeon Vega 8 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon W3570 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these two processors?

A: The Intel Xeon W3570 has a TDP of 130 watts. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U has a TDP of 15 watts.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon W3570 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U has 4 MB of shared L3 cache.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U wins the only direct benchmark comparison in the database. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 624 against 279, a 55.3% lead. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that resembles multi-threaded rendering in that benchmark. The Ryzen also wins on power efficiency: 15 watts versus 130 watts means it generates far less heat and requires a much smaller cooling solution, suitable for thin laptops. It supports DDR4 memory, PCIe Gen 3, and includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, so a system built around it does not need a separate GPU for display output. The Ryzen is also an active product, whereas the Xeon is end-of-life.

The Intel Xeon W3570 retains advantages in specific areas not covered by the head-to-head test. It has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, double the Ryzen’s 4 MB, which could aid workloads with large working sets that fit in cache. It supports ECC memory, which is important for error-sensitive server or workstation tasks. It uses triple-channel DDR3 memory, which offers a wider memory bus than the Ryzen’s dual-channel DDR4, though the Ryzen’s higher memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s) may compensate. The Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.20 GHz versus 2.10 GHz could help in lightly threaded tasks that do not boost well, though its lower boost clock of 3.47 GHz versus 3.70 GHz limits that advantage. The Xeon also has a longer history in legacy Socket 1366 systems, making it a drop-in upgrade for existing boards.

For a new purchase, the Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U is the better choice. It wins the only shared benchmark, uses a fraction of the power, and supports modern memory and PCIe standards. For a legacy workstation requiring ECC and triple-channel DDR3, the Xeon W3570 has niche value, but the benchmark data does not show it winning any performance test. The aggregate scores are close enough to call both CPUs roughly equal in overall database standing, but the head-to-head result tilts the practical recommendation decisively toward AMD.