AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G vs Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G are two very different processors from different eras and market segments, yet their benchmark scores place them in remarkably close competition. The Xeon E5-2698B v3 is a 16-core, 32-thread server/workstation chip built on Intel's 22 nm Haswell architecture, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G is a 6-core, 12-thread desktop processor on AMD's 7 nm Zen 2 architecture. Despite the Xeon's massive core advantage, the Ryzen's newer architecture and higher clock speeds bring it within striking distance in every tested workload. The data shows a 6-0 sweep for the Intel chip in the head-to-head Cinebench tests, but the margins are consistently thin, ranging from 1.0% to 1.2%. Both processors share the same 57th percentile ranking among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by less than 1%, signaling that this is a contest decided by fractions rather than by knockout blows.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but the pattern is one of narrow margins rather than dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1395 against the Ryzen's 1379, a 1.2% edge. The single-core R15 result is nearly identical in percentage terms: Intel's 196 beats AMD's 194 by 1.0%. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core test shows the Xeon at 5814 versus 5747 for the Ryzen, again a 1.2% difference. The single-core R20 result follows suit, with Intel at 820 and AMD at 811, a 1.1% gap. The trend holds in Cinebench R23: the Xeon posts 13843 multi-core and 1954 single-core, while the Ryzen manages 13685 and 1932, respectively, yielding 1.2% and 1.1% leads for Intel.

What is striking is how consistent these margins are across workloads that typically reward different strengths. The Xeon's 16 cores and 32 threads should theoretically crush the Ryzen's 6 cores and 12 threads in multi-threaded renders, yet the 16-core Intel chip only leads by 1.2% in the most demanding multi-core tests. This is explained by the Ryzen's architectural advantages: it uses a 7 nm process from TSMC compared to Intel's 22 nm, and its base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz far exceed the Xeon's 2.00 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. The Ryzen also has a much larger transistor budget at 9,800 million versus 2,600 million, packed into a smaller die (156 mm² versus 356 mm²). The Xeon's single-core wins are even more telling—a 16-core Haswell part from 2014 beating a modern Zen 2 chip in single-threaded Cinebench by 1.0-1.1% suggests that the Ryzen's clock speed advantage is being offset by other factors, possibly memory bandwidth or cache architecture.

The Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G does have one benchmark that the Xeon lacks entirely: Geekbench. In Geekbench multi-core, the Ryzen scores 6629, and in single-core it scores 1440. Since the Xeon has no Geekbench results in the data, these scores cannot be directly compared, but they contribute to the Ryzen's overall average benchmark score of 3977, which is only 0.7% lower than the Xeon's 4004. The Xeon's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655G with an average score of 4010 and a delta of -0.2%, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5875U at 3971 with a delta of 0.2%. Both chips sit in a tight cluster of mid-range performers, each within 0.5% of the Intel Xeon E-2336 and Intel Xeon D-2733NT.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 is the winner on raw performance, taking all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. The margins are narrow but consistent, and the Xeon's 16-core/32-thread configuration provides a theoretical headroom that the Ryzen cannot match in multi-threaded workloads. However, the data also shows that this is not a decisive victory—the Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G comes within 1.2% in every test, which is within run-to-run variance for many workloads. The Ryzen is also a much newer part, released on 2020-07-20, and remains in active production, while the Xeon is end-of-life. The Ryzen's integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics is a feature the Xeon lacks entirely, and its 65 W TDP versus the Xeon's 135 W TDP makes it a substantially more power-efficient choice, though the data does not quantify the thermal impact beyond the TDP figures.

For users who prioritize maximum multi-threaded throughput in Cinebench-style rendering, the Xeon E5-2698B v3 is the pick. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with 40 MB of shared L3 cache, give it a structural advantage that the Ryzen's clock speed cannot fully overcome. For users who need a desktop processor with integrated graphics, active production status, and a modern socket (AMD Socket AM4), the Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G is the only viable option between the two, and its performance deficit is small enough to be negligible in many real-world scenarios. The data does not support a recommendation based on price or value, as no launch MSRP or cost information is available for either part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor scores higher in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 scores 13843, which is 1.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G's 13685.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G win any of the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: No. The data shows 6 wins for the Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 and 0 wins for the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G in the head-to-head Cinebench tests.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 has an average benchmark score of 4004, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G has an average of 3977.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of process node?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 is built on a 22 nm process, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G uses a 7 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Does either processor have integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G includes Radeon Vega 7 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 is end-of-life, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G is listed as active.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz for the Xeon and 3.70 GHz for the Ryzen, with boost clocks of 3.40 GHz and 4.20 GHz, respectively. Thermal design power is 135 W for the Intel part and 65 W for the AMD part. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4. Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the Xeon has a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Ryzen has a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen is listed simply as Gen 3 without a lane count. The Xeon is a server/workstation part, while the Ryzen is a desktop chip. The Xeon is end-of-life; the Ryzen is active. The Xeon's part number is SR21T, and the Ryzen's is 100-000000143100-100000143MPK.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, these are products from different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 uses the Haswell architecture (codename Haswell-EP) on a 22 nm process from Intel's own foundry. It packs 2,600 million transistors into a 356 mm² die. Its cache hierarchy is 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and a shared 40 MB L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G uses the Zen 2 architecture (codename Renoir) on a 7 nm process from TSMC, with 9,800 million transistors in a 156 mm² die. Its cache configuration is 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. The Xeon's L3 cache is five times larger, which helps compensate for its lower clock speeds in cache-sensitive workloads. The Ryzen's L2 cache is double the size per core. The Xeon's transistor count is far lower despite the larger die, reflecting the older process node. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics, a feature absent from the Xeon. Both processors have locked multipliers, meaning they are not unlocked for overclocking. The Xeon is from the Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP) generation, while the Ryzen is from the Ryzen 5 (Zen 2 (Renoir)) generation.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 wins in every Cinebench benchmark recorded, but the margins are slim. Its biggest edges are 1.2% in the multi-core tests (R15, R20, and R23), where its 16 cores and 32 threads provide the raw parallel throughput that the Ryzen's 6 cores cannot match. The Xeon also wins single-core tests by 1.0-1.1%, which is more surprising given the Ryzen's higher clock speeds. The Xeon's 40 MB of shared L3 cache and quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth likely contribute to these wins, as they reduce memory latency and improve data throughput for each core. For users running heavily multi-threaded workloads like Cinebench R23 rendering, the Xeon's performance, while only marginally ahead, is nonetheless consistently ahead.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but its advantages are found outside of the Cinebench suite. It has an integrated GPU (Radeon Vega 7), which the Xeon lacks entirely, making it a self-contained solution for desktop systems without a discrete graphics card. It has a significantly lower TDP of 65 W versus 135 W, which the data shows but does not quantify in terms of cooling or power consumption. The Ryzen is an active product with a release date of 2020-07-20, meaning it is currently available and supported, while the Xeon is end-of-life. Its 7 nm process and 9,800 million transistors in a smaller die suggest architectural efficiency, and its higher base and boost clocks (3.70 GHz and 4.20 GHz) give it a clock-speed advantage that nearly closes the gap with the Xeon's core-count lead. The Ryzen also has Geekbench scores (6629 multi-core, 1440 single-core) that the Xeon lacks, providing additional performance data points for users who rely on that benchmark. For workloads that are not purely multi-threaded rendering, such as general desktop use or tasks that benefit from higher clock speeds, the Ryzen's performance is likely comparable, though the data does not include direct comparisons outside of Cinebench.