AMD Ryzen 7 2700 vs Intel Xeon D-1715TER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between the AMD Ryzen 7 2700 and the Intel Xeon D-1715TER in the two tests where both processors have direct comparisons. The AMD part wins both head-to-head matchups, and it does so by substantial margins.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen 7 2700 scores 1551 against the Xeon D-1715TER's 779. That is a 99.1% advantage, meaning the AMD chip delivers essentially double the multi-threaded rendering performance. This is a massive gap, not a marginal one. For workloads that scale across cores, the Ryzen 7 2700 is in a completely different performance class.

The single-core Cinebench R15 result is also a clear win for AMD, though the margin is smaller. The Ryzen 7 2700 scores 161, while the Xeon D-1715TER scores 109. That works out to a 47.7% lead for the AMD processor. Even in lightly-threaded tasks where the Xeon's newer Ice Lake architecture might be expected to help, the higher clock speeds of the Ryzen part win out.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the Ryzen 7 2700 sits at 2320, while the Xeon D-1715TER averages 2238. This places the AMD chip in the 48th percentile of all CPUs in the database, and the Intel chip in the 47th percentile. The overall scores are close, but the head-to-head deltas show that the Ryzen's wins are concentrated and large, while the Xeon's average is pulled up by its performance in other tests not directly compared here.

The nearest rivals for each chip provide additional context. The Ryzen 7 2700's closest competitor is the Intel Xeon E-2134 at 2319, a 0% delta. The Xeon D-1715TER's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 at 2246, a -0.3% delta. This suggests the Xeon D-1715TER is competing with lower-tier desktop parts, while the Ryzen 7 2700 is holding its own against a Xeon E-series workstation chip.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies entirely. The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is built on the Zen architecture, specifically the Zen+ refinement codenamed Pinnacle Ridge, using a 12 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It packs 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The chip has a 65 W TDP and fits into the AMD Socket AM4.

The Intel Xeon D-1715TER is a different beast. It uses the Ice Lake architecture, specifically Ice Lake-D, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It has only 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The TDP is lower at 50 W, and it uses the Intel BGA 2227 socket, which is a soldered, embedded form factor rather than a user-replaceable socket.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Ryzen 7 2700 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Xeon D-1715TER has 80 KB of L1 per core, a much larger 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's larger L2 cache per core reflects its server-oriented design, but the Ryzen's larger total L3 cache gives it an edge in workloads that benefit from shared cache.

Memory support is another key split. Both support DDR4, but the Ryzen 7 2700 uses dual-channel memory with 46.9 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Xeon D-1715TER uses triple-channel memory with 64.0 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the Ryzen does not. The Xeon's PCIe implementation is Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the Ryzen is limited to Gen 3 with 16 lanes. This makes the Xeon more suited to server environments where memory reliability and I/O bandwidth matter, even though its raw compute performance is far lower.

The Ryzen 7 2700 has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, while the Xeon D-1715TER is locked. The Ryzen was released in April 2018 with a launch MSRP of $299, while the Xeon arrived in February 2022.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture. The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 wins in every directly compared benchmark. It is 99.1% ahead in multi-core Cinebench R15 and 47.7% ahead in single-core. For any desktop workload, including gaming, content creation, or general productivity, the Ryzen 7 2700 is the stronger performer in the measured tests.

The Xeon D-1715TER's advantages are not in raw benchmark scores but in platform features. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for servers and workstations where a memory error can corrupt data. Its triple-channel memory interface provides 64.0 GB/s of bandwidth, a 36.5% improvement over the Ryzen's 46.9 GB/s. The PCIe Gen 4 support offers double the bandwidth per lane of the Ryzen's Gen 3. Its lower 50 W TDP makes it suitable for dense, power-constrained environments where the Ryzen's 65 W TDP might be too much.

The Xeon also has a much larger L2 cache per core (1.25 MB vs 512 KB), which can help in workloads with high per-thread cache demands. Its 10 nm process is newer than the 12 nm node used by the Ryzen, potentially offering better power efficiency per transistor, though the overall benchmark scores do not reflect a performance advantage from this.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is dramatically faster. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 1551 versus the Xeon D-1715TER's 779, a 99.1% lead.

Q: Is the Xeon D-1715TER better for single-threaded tasks?

A: No. The Ryzen 7 2700 also wins single-core Cinebench R15 with a score of 161 versus 109, a 47.7% advantage.

Q: Does the Xeon D-1715TER support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon D-1715TER supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 does not support ECC.

Q: Which chip has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon D-1715TER has 64.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth thanks to its triple-channel interface. The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 has 46.9 GB/s from its dual-channel interface.

Q: Which processor is more overclockable?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 2700 has an unlocked multiplier, so it can be overclocked. The Intel Xeon D-1715TER has a locked multiplier.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ryzen 7 2700 averages 2320, while the Xeon D-1715TER averages 2238. Both sit near the 47-48th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

The Verdict

The choice between these two parts comes down to workload, not raw speed. If you need compute performance, the AMD Ryzen 7 2700 is the clear winner. It doubles the Xeon's multi-core score and leads by nearly 48% in single-core. The 8-core, 16-thread configuration with a 4.10 GHz boost clock is simply far more capable for any parallel or general-purpose workload.

The Intel Xeon D-1715TER exists for a different purpose. Its 4 cores and 8 threads are modest, but it brings ECC memory support, a triple-channel memory bus with 64.0 GB/s bandwidth, PCIe Gen 4 connectivity, and a lower 50 W TDP. It is built for embedded and server environments where data integrity, I/O bandwidth, and power efficiency matter more than raw benchmark scores.

For a desktop builder looking for a fast, overclockable CPU for gaming or content creation, the Ryzen 7 2700 is the obvious pick. For a system integrator building a compact server or network appliance that needs ECC memory and modern PCIe, the Xeon D-1715TER is the appropriate choice despite its lower scores. The benchmark data does not favor the Xeon in any measured compute test, but its platform features are the deciding factor in its intended market segment.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 2700 | Intel Xeon D-1715TER |

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

| Cores | 8 | 4 |

| Threads | 16 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 50 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | Intel BGA 2227 |

| Architecture | Zen (Zen+, Pinnacle Ridge) | Ice Lake (Ice Lake-D) |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 10 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Triple-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 46.9 GB/s | 64.0 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes | Gen 4, 16 Lanes |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | April 2018 | February 2022 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |