AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U vs Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive advantage for the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U in the two directly comparable benchmark tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD part scores 1161 against 619 for the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3, a delta of 87.6%. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the Ryzen processor completes multi-threaded rendering workloads in roughly half the time based on the raw score ratio.

The single-core Cinebench R15 result is even more lopsided. The Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U posts 175 points, while the Xeon manages only 87, yielding a delta of 101.1%. That means the AMD chip more than doubles the Intel processor's single-thread performance in this specific test. Given that single-core performance often dictates responsiveness in lightly threaded applications, this gap is significant for everyday workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U holds an average benchmark score of 1810 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 42nd percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon E5-4610 v3 averages 1777, sitting at the 41st percentile. The difference in average scores is only 33 points, roughly 1.9%, which is remarkably close given the head-to-head deltas. This suggests that the Xeon, despite losing badly in the two shared Cinebench tests, may perform competitively in other workloads not covered by the direct comparison.

The nearest rivals in the database for each processor further contextualize their standing. The Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U sits within 0.4% of the Intel Core i5-6600K (score 1816) and the Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 (score 1817), while being 0.1% and 0.2% ahead of the Core i3-9320 and Core i3-9100 respectively. The Xeon E5-4610 v3 is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 (delta -0.1%), 0.2% ahead of the Xeon E5-2637 v3, 0.4% ahead of the Core i7-4870HQ, and 0.6% behind the Ryzen 3 3200GE. These delta values reveal that both processors occupy a similar overall performance tier, despite their divergent results in the direct Cinebench matchups.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U wins both head-to-head benchmarks in the database: Cinebench R15 multi-core and Cinebench R15 single-core. This gives it a clean 2-0 record in direct comparisons. The multi-core win at 87.6% delta is particularly telling for productivity tasks that scale across cores, while the 101.1% single-core win indicates a strong advantage in tasks that depend on per-thread speed, such as legacy software, certain database queries, or lightly threaded applications.

The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 has zero direct benchmark wins in this comparison. However, it does have additional recorded benchmarks that the AMD part lacks: Cinebench R20 multi-core (2580), R20 single-core (364), R23 multi-core (6144), and R23 single-core (867). These scores cannot be directly compared to the Ryzen because no corresponding R20 or R23 data exists for the AMD processor in the database. The Xeon's presence in these newer test suites suggests it has been evaluated in more recent rendering workloads, but without matching Ryzen data, no head-to-head conclusion can be drawn from those figures.

Where the Xeon does hold an edge is in its architectural capabilities. It supports ECC memory, which the Ryzen does not. It also offers quad-channel memory, compared to dual-channel on the AMD part, though the Ryzen's memory bandwidth is measured higher at 68.3 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s for the Xeon. The Xeon's PCIe implementation provides 40 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen offers PCIe Gen 3 without a listed lane count. For server or workstation environments where memory reliability and expansion capacity matter, the Xeon's feature set may compensate for its lower raw benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras and philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U is built on the Zen 2 architecture with the Renoir codename, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 9,800 million transistors on a 156 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-EP, fabricated on Intel's 22 nm process with 2,600 million transistors spread across a 356 mm² die. The process node difference alone, 7 nm versus 22 nm, explains much of the efficiency and clock speed gap between the two.

Core and thread counts favor the Intel part on paper. The Xeon offers 10 cores and 20 threads, while the Ryzen provides 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite having 40% more cores and 67% more threads, the Xeon still loses the multi-core Cinebench R15 test by 87.6%. This indicates that per-core performance, clock speed, and memory architecture on the Ryzen more than compensate for the Xeon's core advantage. The Ryzen's base clock is listed at 2.10 GHz with a boost of 4.00 GHz. The Xeon's base clock is recorded as 1700.00 MHz (which appears to be a data anomaly, likely 1.70 GHz), with no boost clock listed. Even at base, the Ryzen starts at a higher frequency and can nearly double that under boost.

Cache organization also differs significantly. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core. For L2, the Ryzen has 512 KB per core, while the Xeon has 256 KB per core. The Ryzen's shared L3 is 8 MB, while the Xeon's shared L3 is 25 MB. The larger L3 on the Xeon may help in workloads with large working sets, but the Ryzen's higher per-core L2 and faster clock speeds appear to deliver better results in the tested scenarios.

Memory support shows a mixed picture. Both support DDR4, but the Ryzen uses dual-channel memory with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon uses quad-channel with 51.2 GB/s. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a critical feature for error-sensitive server workloads, while the Ryzen does not. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon RX Vega 6 graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all, requiring a discrete GPU for any display output. The Ryzen uses the AMD Socket FP6, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The Ryzen is classified as a mobile part, while the Xeon is a server/workstation processor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U scores 175 in Cinebench R15 single-core, while the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 scores 87. The AMD part leads by 101.1%.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5-4610 v3 supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U has an average benchmark score of 1810, while the Xeon E5-4610 v3 averages 1777. The Ryzen is approximately 1.9% higher.

Q: What is the core count difference between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U includes Radeon RX Vega 6 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each processor?

A: The Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U has a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s using dual-channel memory. The Xeon E5-4610 v3 has 51.2 GB/s using quad-channel memory.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U is the superior performer in direct benchmark comparisons. It wins both Cinebench R15 tests by wide margins: 87.6% in multi-core and 101.1% in single-core. Its average benchmark score of 1810 also edges out the Xeon's 1777. For users running Cinebench R15 workloads, or similar rendering tasks that scale with both core count and per-core speed, the Ryzen is the clear choice.

However, the Xeon E5-4610 v3 should not be dismissed entirely. Its support for ECC memory and quad-channel memory architecture, combined with its server/workstation classification, makes it suitable for environments where data integrity and memory expansion are priorities over raw benchmark scores. The Xeon also has additional recorded benchmarks in Cinebench R20 and R23 that the Ryzen lacks, suggesting it has been validated in more recent rendering tests. The Xeon's larger 25 MB shared L3 cache may also benefit workloads with large, frequently accessed datasets.

The production status also matters: the Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U is listed as Active, while the Xeon E5-4610 v3 is End-of-life. For new system builds, the Ryzen offers an active, supported platform. The Xeon, with a launch MSRP of $1219, was a high-end server part at its 2015 release, but its end-of-life status means it is no longer a forward-looking purchase. The Ryzen's mobile segment designation also implies lower power consumption, with a TDP of 15 watts versus the Xeon's 105 watts, though this is not directly benchmarked.

For most workloads where performance is the primary criterion and ECC memory is not a requirement, the data points squarely to the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U. For server deployments that mandate ECC support and can leverage quad-channel memory, the Xeon E5-4610 v3 remains a functional, if outdated, option.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U | Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 10 |

| Threads | 12 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 1700.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | Not listed |

| TDP | 15 W | 105 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP6 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Haswell |

| Codename | Renoir | Haswell-EP |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 9,800 million | 2,600 million |

| Die Size | 156 mm² | 356 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 25 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 68.3 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon RX Vega 6 | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2020-05-06 | 2015-05-31 |

| Part Number | Not listed | SR22S |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |