AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 and the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 occupy different corners of the processor market, yet both target workloads that demand reliability and consistent throughput. The Ryzen 7 1700 is a desktop-oriented, eight-core part from AMD’s 1000 series, built on the Zen architecture and released in March 2017. The Xeon E3-1285L v4 is a server and workstation chip from Intel, based on the Broadwell-DT architecture, released in June 2015, and now marked as end-of-life. Despite their different origins, the database places them close in overall average benchmark scores, with the Ryzen 7 1700 scoring 2015 and the Xeon E3-1285L v4 scoring 1991. That small gap, roughly 1.2 percent in favor of the AMD part, masks a far more dramatic divergence in how they handle specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking comparison comes from the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, where the Ryzen 7 1700 delivers a score of 1414 against the Xeon’s 693. That is a 104 percent advantage, meaning the AMD processor more than doubles the Intel chip’s output in this heavily threaded rendering workload. The reason is straightforward from the recorded data: the Ryzen 7 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon E3-1285L v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The extra physical cores and threads translate directly into a massive multi-threaded lead, and the benchmark results confirm that the Ryzen part is the clear winner when the workload can use all available execution resources.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though with a smaller margin. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ryzen 7 1700 scores 147, while the Xeon E3-1285L v4 scores 97. That works out to a 51.5 percent advantage for the AMD chip. The Ryzen 7 1700 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, while the Xeon has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Intel part actually has higher clock speeds on paper, yet it still loses by over half in this test. The data suggests that the Zen architecture’s per-core efficiency, combined with the larger cache allocation, gives the Ryzen 7 1700 a decisive edge even when only one thread is active.

The database also includes Geekbench results for the Ryzen 7 1700, with a multi-core score of 5475 and a single-core score of 1023. The Xeon E3-1285L v4 does not have Geekbench results in the recorded data, so a direct comparison on that test is not possible. However, the Cinebench results are sufficient to establish the pattern: the Ryzen 7 1700 wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons recorded in the database, giving it 2 wins out of 2 possible. The Xeon E3-1285L v4 has no wins in this matchup.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the Ryzen 7 1700 sits at the 45th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Xeon E3-1285L v4 sits at the 44th percentile. That nearly identical percentile ranking explains why their average scores are so close, but it also highlights how misleading a single aggregate number can be. The Ryzen 7 1700’s average score of 2015 is pulled up by its strong multi-threaded performance, while the Xeon’s average of 1991 comes from a different mix of strengths. The nearest rivals for the Ryzen 7 1700 include the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B with an average score of 2012 and a delta of 0.2 percent, the Intel Core i5-1145GRE with 2025 and a negative 0.5 percent delta, the Intel Core i5-8300H with 2005 and a positive 0.5 percent delta, and the Intel Xeon D-1712TR with 2004 and a positive 0.5 percent delta. For the Xeon E3-1285L v4, the nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X with 1992 and a delta of 0 percent, the Intel Core i7-7920HQ with 1992 and a negative 0.1 percent delta, the Intel Xeon E3-1585L v5 with 1989 and a positive 0.1 percent delta, and the Intel Core i5-8279U with 1987 and a positive 0.2 percent delta. These figures show that both processors are competitive within their immediate peer groups, but the Ryzen 7 1700’s lead over the Xeon in direct comparison is substantial.

The Verdict

The data makes a clear case: the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 outperforms the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 in every benchmark test where both have recorded scores. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen part leads by 104 percent, and in single-core, it leads by 51.5 percent. That is not a marginal difference; it is a generational gap in capability. Anyone choosing between these two processors for a workload that benefits from multiple cores should select the Ryzen 7 1700 without hesitation. The eight-core, sixteen-thread configuration is simply far more capable than the four-core, eight-thread Xeon when the application scales across cores.

For single-threaded tasks, the Ryzen 7 1700 also wins, despite the Xeon’s higher base and boost clocks. The Zen architecture appears to deliver better instructions-per-clock in this comparison, and the recorded single-core Cinebench score reflects that. The Xeon’s higher clock speeds, 3.40 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost, do not compensate for the architectural deficit. The Ryzen 7 1700’s boost clock of 3.70 GHz is close enough, and its per-core efficiency is superior.

The Xeon E3-1285L v4 does have one advantage that is not captured in the performance scores: it includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel Iris Pro P6300. The Ryzen 7 1700 has no integrated graphics listed in the database, meaning a system built around it requires a discrete GPU. For a server or workstation where a separate graphics card is unnecessary, the Xeon’s integrated graphics could reduce system complexity. However, that is a system-level consideration, not a performance metric, and it does not change the benchmark outcome.

The production status also matters. The Ryzen 7 1700 is listed as active, while the Xeon E3-1285L v4 is end-of-life. For long-term system planning, an active part is easier to source and support. The Ryzen 7 1700 also has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the Xeon’s multiplier is locked. The database does not provide overclocking results, but the unlocked multiplier gives the Ryzen part additional flexibility that the Xeon lacks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages with distinct design priorities. The Ryzen 7 1700 uses the Zen architecture, specifically the Summit Ridge codename, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It integrates 4,800 million transistors on a die size of 213 mm². The Xeon E3-1285L v4 uses the Broadwell architecture, specifically Broadwell-DT, also built on a 14 nm process but at Intel’s foundry. It contains 1,400 million transistors on a smaller 160 mm² die. The transistor count difference is notable: the Ryzen part has more than three times the transistor count of the Xeon, which helps explain its advantage in multi-threaded workloads.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. The Ryzen 7 1700 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon E3-1285L v4 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and only 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen part’s L3 cache is nearly three times larger, which can reduce memory latency in workloads that repeatedly access the same data set. The L2 cache per core is also double on the AMD side, giving each core more fast storage for immediate computations.

Memory support further separates the two. The Ryzen 7 1700 supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a theoretical memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The Xeon E3-1285L v4 supports DDR3 memory, also dual-channel, but with a lower theoretical bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The newer DDR4 standard and higher bandwidth give the Ryzen part an advantage in memory-bound tasks. Both processors support ECC memory, which is important for server and workstation reliability, and both have PCIe Gen 3 connectivity. The Ryzen 7 1700 offers 16 CPU-facing PCIe lanes, while the Xeon’s lane count is not specified in the database beyond the Gen 3 standard.

The Ryzen 7 1700 uses the AMD Socket AM4, while the Xeon E3-1285L v4 uses the Intel Socket 1150. These are incompatible platforms, so a motherboard choice locks the user into one ecosystem. The Ryzen part is a desktop-market segment product, while the Xeon is a server and workstation product. The Xeon’s integrated graphics, Intel Iris Pro P6300, is a feature that the Ryzen part does not offer, making the Xeon more self-contained for systems that do not need a discrete GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Why is the Ryzen 7 1700 so much faster in multi-core tests?

A: The Cinebench R15 multi-core score for the Ryzen 7 1700 is 1414, versus 693 for the Xeon E3-1285L v4. That 104 percent advantage comes from the Ryzen part having twice as many cores and threads, which allows it to process more parallel work simultaneously.

Q: Does the Xeon E3-1285L v4 have any performance advantage?

A: In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Xeon E3-1285L v4 does not win any test. The Ryzen 7 1700 wins both the Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core tests. However, the Xeon includes integrated graphics (Intel Iris Pro P6300), which the Ryzen 7 1700 lacks.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Ryzen 7 1700 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The Xeon E3-1285L v4 supports DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The Ryzen 7 1700 is listed as active production, while the Xeon E3-1285L v4 is listed as end-of-life.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: Both processors have a TDP of 65 watts, according to the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 wins in every performance domain that the database records. For multi-threaded applications such as video rendering, 3D modeling, software compilation, and scientific simulations, the Ryzen part’s 8-core, 16-thread configuration delivers a 104 percent advantage over the Xeon in Cinebench R15 multi-core. That means workloads that can utilize all threads will complete in roughly half the time on the Ryzen part. The larger 16 MB L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s also favor the Ryzen part in data-intensive tasks that repeatedly access large working sets.

For single-threaded tasks, the Ryzen 7 1700 still leads, with a 51.5 percent advantage in Cinebench R15 single-core. This covers applications that rely on one primary thread, such as older software, certain database operations, or lightly threaded games. The Ryzen part’s boost clock of 3.70 GHz, combined with superior per-core efficiency, is enough to beat the Xeon’s 3.80 GHz boost clock. The Ryzen part also has an unlocked multiplier, allowing users to push performance beyond stock settings, whereas the Xeon’s multiplier is locked.

The Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 does not win any benchmark category in the head-to-head data. Its only unique advantage is the integrated Intel Iris Pro P6300 graphics, which means it can operate in a system without a discrete GPU. This makes the Xeon a candidate for headless servers, embedded workstations, or compact systems where adding a graphics card is impractical. The Xeon also uses DDR3 memory, which may be cheaper or more readily available in legacy systems, though the database records a lower bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s compared to the Ryzen’s 42.7 GB/s.

The Xeon’s end-of-life status and locked multiplier further limit its appeal. For new system builds, the Ryzen 7 1700 is the more future-proof choice, with active production status and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The Ryzen part’s higher transistor count, 4,800 million versus 1,400 million, and larger cache hierarchy give it a structural advantage that the Xeon cannot overcome.

The database also shows that the Ryzen 7 1700 sits in a peer group of comparable processors, including the Intel Core i5-8300H and Intel Xeon D-1712TR, with average scores within a few points. The Xeon E3-1285L v4 sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X and Intel Core i5-8279U. Neither processor is an outlier in its immediate performance class, but the direct comparison between the two is decisive. Every benchmark that includes both parts shows the Ryzen 7 1700 ahead, often by a wide margin. The choice is clear: for raw performance, the Ryzen 7 1700 is the superior processor. The Xeon E3-1285L v4 only makes sense in a niche scenario where its integrated graphics and legacy DDR3 support are more important than compute capability.