AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS vs Intel Xeon E-2436 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2436 and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS are two six-core, twelve-thread processors that sit at nearly the same overall performance level. The Intel part, a Raptor Lake-S server/workstation chip, posts an average benchmark score of 28,530, while the AMD Hawk Point mobile processor scores 28,478, a marginal 0.2% difference. Both occupy the 80th percentile of all CPUs, and the data shows they are direct rivals: each appears in the other's nearestRivals list with a deltaPct of -0.2% from the other's average score. The benchmark breakdown, however, reveals distinct strengths that go well beyond the near-identical aggregate numbers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the Intel Xeon E-2436's clean sweep of every Cinebench test. Across all six Cinebench runs — R15, R20, and R23, each in both single-core and multi-core variants — the Xeon wins by a consistent 1.6%. The margins are small but uniform: 1,853 vs 1,824 in R15 multi-core, 261 vs 257 in R15 single-core, 7,723 vs 7,603 in R20 multi-core, 1,090 vs 1,073 in R20 single-core, 18,389 vs 18,104 in R23 multi-core, and 2,596 vs 2,555 in R23 single-core. This consistency suggests a slight architectural advantage in the Xeon's rendering and 3D workloads, even though the raw scores are close.

The Passmark suite tells a more varied story. The Xeon dominates in floating-point math, scoring 50,198 against the Ryzen's 43,019, a 16.7% advantage. Its lead in the physics test is even larger: 1,353 vs 1,043, a 29.7% margin — the widest gap in the entire comparison. The Xeon also wins in prime number finding (84 vs 71, or 18.3%), multithread performance (21,708 vs 21,465, a 1.1% edge), data compression (246,902 vs 246,446, a 0.2% margin), and single-thread performance (3,575 vs 3,561, a 0.4% lead).

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS fights back in four specific Passmark workloads. Its biggest win is in extended instructions, scoring 18,507 vs the Xeon's 16,334, an 11.7% margin. It also leads in data encryption (14,962 vs 13,920, a 7% advantage), integer math (69,839 vs 67,082, a 3.9% lead), and random string sorting (30,235 vs 28,363, a 6.2% edge). These are not trivial wins — the encryption and extended instruction results are substantial enough to matter for specific software workloads. Overall, the Xeon takes 13 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, with the Ryzen winning 4.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E-2436 is the clear choice for floating-point-heavy and physics-based computations. Its 16.7% lead in floating-point math and 29.7% lead in physics indicate a strong advantage in scientific simulations, engineering analysis, and any workload that relies heavily on double-precision or vectorized math. The consistent 1.6% Cinebench sweep further reinforces this, making the Xeon the better pick for rendering, 3D modeling, and content creation tasks where Cinebench scores are a reliable proxy for real-world performance. The 18.3% lead in prime-number finding also suggests an edge in certain mathematical or cryptographic workloads.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS, by contrast, wins in integer-heavy and data-manipulation tasks. Its 11.7% lead in extended instructions points to superior handling of SIMD-heavy code like AVX-512 or similar instruction sets, which benefits compression, encoding, and certain database operations. The 7% encryption advantage makes it the better option for security-related workloads, VPNs, or encrypted storage. The 3.9% integer math win and 6.2% random string sorting win round out a profile suited for general-purpose office work, web serving, and data processing. The Ryzen also carries integrated Radeon 760M graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely — a significant differentiator for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2436 has an average benchmark score of 28,530, compared to the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS's 28,478 — a difference of just 0.2% in Intel's favor.

Q: How much faster is the Xeon in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Xeon scores 18,389 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Ryzen scores 18,104. The Xeon leads by 1.6%, consistent with its margin across all other Cinebench tests.

Q: In which benchmark does the AMD processor have its largest win over Intel?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS wins by its largest margin in Passmark extended instructions, scoring 18,507 against the Xeon's 16,334 — an 11.7% advantage.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two CPUs?

A: The largest single gap is in Passmark physics, where the Intel Xeon E-2436 scores 1,353 versus the Ryzen's 1,043, giving Intel a 29.7% lead.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E-2436 and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS support ECC memory, making both viable for workstation or server use where data integrity is critical.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS includes integrated graphics, featuring the Radeon 760M. The Intel Xeon E-2436 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several fundamental specifications. The Intel Xeon E-2436 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has a higher base clock of 3.50 GHz but a slightly lower boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Thermal design power differs dramatically: the Xeon is rated at 65W, while the Ryzen is rated at just 28W, reflecting its mobile design.

The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1700, while the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP7. The Xeon is built on Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 163 mm², whereas the Ryzen uses TSMC's 4 nm process with 25,000 million transistors and a die size of 178 mm². Memory bandwidth also differs, with the Xeon offering 76.8 GB/s and the Ryzen offering 89.6 GB/s, both over dual-channel DDR5.

PCIe support is another differentiator: the Xeon provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The market segments reflect their intended uses — the Xeon is a Server/Workstation part, while the Ryzen is a Mobile processor. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $331; the Ryzen has no listed launch MSRP. Finally, the Xeon was released on 2023-12-13, while the Ryzen followed on 2024-04-15.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear: the Intel Xeon E-2436 uses the Raptor Lake architecture (codename Raptor Lake-S, generation Xeon E), while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS uses Zen 4 (codename Hawk Point, generation Ryzen 5). The process nodes diverge significantly — Intel uses a 10 nm node from its own foundry, while AMD uses a 4 nm node from TSMC. This explains the transistor count difference: the Ryzen packs 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, while the Xeon's transistor count is not listed, though its die is smaller at 163 mm².

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Xeon has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 18 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen has smaller per-core caches — 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 — and a smaller 16 MB shared L3. Neither processor features 3D V-Cache. Both support DDR5 dual-channel memory and ECC, but the Ryzen's memory bandwidth advantage (89.6 GB/s vs 76.8 GB/s) is notable. The Ryzen also brings integrated Radeon 760M graphics, a feature entirely absent from the Xeon. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of use cases. The Intel Xeon E-2436 is the stronger performer in multi-threaded rendering, physics simulation, and floating-point math. Its 29.7% physics lead and 16.7% floating-point lead are the largest margins in the comparison, and its consistent 1.6% Cinebench wins across all six tests make it the safer choice for any CPU-bound creative or scientific workload. The Xeon also wins 13 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, giving it a broad performance edge overall.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS, however, should be the pick for mobile or power-constrained systems. Its 28W TDP is less than half the Xeon's 65W, making it far better suited for laptops or compact builds. It wins decisively in extended instructions (11.7%), encryption (7%), integer math (3.9%), and random string sorting (6.2%), making it the better option for data-heavy, security-focused, or general office workloads. Its integrated Radeon 760M graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU, and its higher memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s) and newer 4 nm process give it a modern efficiency advantage.

For a workstation or server needing maximum floating-point and multi-core rendering performance, the Intel Xeon E-2436 is the data-backed choice. For a mobile workstation or low-power system requiring integrated graphics, strong encryption and integer performance, and significantly lower power draw, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS is clearly superior. The near-identical average scores (28,530 vs 28,478) mask these very different strengths, so the decision should hinge on workload and physical constraints rather than aggregate benchmarks.