AMD Ryzen 7 3750H vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark split between the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 and the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H is starkly generational. The AMD part wins three of the four head-to-head tests, but the single Intel victory is a landslide that reshapes the overall picture.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 scores 5910 against the Ryzen 7 3750H's 3897. That is a 51.7% advantage for Intel, the largest delta in any benchmark between these two parts. This result is remarkable because both chips have 4 cores and 8 threads, yet the older Xeon, running on a 140W desktop/workstation platform, simply overwhelms the 35W mobile chip in sustained all-core rendering work. The Ryzen 7 3750H's 3897 score places it roughly 34% behind the Xeon in this specific workload, a gap that dwarfs the differences seen elsewhere.

The AMD Ryzen 7 3750H dominates the Cinebench R15 tests. In multi-core, it scores 734 versus the Xeon's 595, a 18.9% margin. In single-core R15, the gap widens dramatically: the AMD chip scores 144 against Intel's 84, a 41.7% deficit for the Xeon. That single-core R15 result is the most lopsided loss for the Intel part across all benchmarks, highlighting how far the Haswell architecture had fallen behind in lightly-threaded efficiency by the time Zen+ arrived.

Cinebench R23 single-core tells a similar story, though less extreme. The Ryzen 7 3750H scores 971, which is 14.1% ahead of the Xeon's 834. The AMD part's 4.00 GHz boost clock versus the Xeon's 3.60 GHz boost is visible in these single-threaded results, where the newer architecture's higher frequency and better instructions-per-clock translate directly into score.

The overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical: the Xeon E5-1620 v3 averages 1709, while the Ryzen 7 3750H averages 1690. That is a 1.1% difference in favor of Intel, yet the distribution of scores could not be more different. The Xeon is a specialized tool that excels in one heavy multi-core scenario, while the Ryzen is a generalist that wins everywhere else. Both land at the 40th percentile among all CPUs, meaning the average scores place them in the same tier, but the underlying benchmark profiles are almost inverse.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors spans four years and two fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 is built on the Haswell-EP architecture using a 22 nm process at Intel's foundry. It packs 2,600 million transistors into a 356 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen 7 3750H uses the Zen+ architecture (codename Picasso), fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 12 nm process, with 4,940 million transistors on a smaller 210 mm² die. The transistor density advantage is clear: AMD fits nearly twice as many transistors into roughly 60% of the die area.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Xeon allocates 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 10 MB L3 cache. The Ryzen 7 3750H provides 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3. Intel's larger L3 pool benefits the Xeon's multi-core workloads, while AMD's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches help feed its higher clock speeds in single-threaded tasks.

Memory architecture separates them further. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s and full ECC support. The Ryzen 7 3750H uses dual-channel DDR4 with no listed memory bandwidth figure and no ECC capability. The Xeon's quad-channel setup and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only) mark it as a server/workstation part, while the Ryzen's unspecified PCIe Gen 3 configuration and integrated Radeon Vega 10 graphics target the mobile market.

The production status and platform positioning reinforce this divide. The Xeon is end-of-life, released in September 2014, and targeted at the server/workstation segment on Intel Socket 2011-3. The Ryzen 7 3750H is active, released in January 2019, and designed for mobile use on AMD Socket FP5. The Xeon's 140W TDP reflects its workstation heritage, while the Ryzen's 35W TDP is typical for a high-performance laptop chip. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not part of the equation for either.

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins in one specific scenario: heavy, sustained multi-core rendering. Its 51.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is the clearest signal in this comparison. For workloads that scale across all cores and threads for extended periods, the Xeon's 140W power envelope and quad-channel memory bandwidth deliver results that the 35W mobile chip cannot match. The 10 MB shared L3 cache also provides a larger working set for data-intensive multi-threaded applications.

The AMD Ryzen 7 3750H wins everything else. Its single-core performance is superior across both Cinebench R15 (41.7% ahead) and Cinebench R23 (14.1% ahead). For everyday responsive tasks, lightly-threaded applications, and any workload that depends on high clock speeds, the Ryzen is the clear choice. The 4.00 GHz boost clock versus the Xeon's 3.60 GHz gives it a frequency advantage that translates directly into single-threaded wins.

The R15 multi-core result also favors AMD, with the Ryzen scoring 18.9% higher. This suggests that in shorter multi-threaded bursts, the Ryzen's higher clocks and newer architecture overcome the Xeon's memory bandwidth and cache advantages. The picture is workload-dependent: brief multi-core tasks favor AMD, while prolonged rendering favors Intel.

The integrated Radeon Vega 10 graphics give the Ryzen 7 3750H a capability the Xeon completely lacks. For systems requiring a display output without a discrete GPU, the AMD part is the only option. The Xeon requires a separate graphics card, which is standard for its workstation market segment but adds cost and power consumption to any build.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: Both have exactly 4 cores and 8 threads. The core and thread counts are identical, so differences in performance come entirely from architecture, clocks, cache, and memory configuration.

Q: Why does the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 win Cinebench R23 multi-core by such a large margin?

A: The Xeon scores 5910 versus the Ryzen's 3897, a 51.7% advantage. This is attributed to the Xeon's 140W TDP, quad-channel memory with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, and larger 10 MB L3 cache, which allow it to sustain high throughput in long all-core workloads despite its older Haswell architecture.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H faster in single-core tasks?

A: Yes. The Ryzen leads in every single-core benchmark: 144 versus 84 in Cinebench R15 (41.7% ahead), and 971 versus 834 in Cinebench R23 (14.1% ahead). Its 4.00 GHz boost clock and newer Zen+ architecture drive these wins.

Q: What memory configurations do these CPUs support?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 7 3750H supports dual-channel DDR4 with no ECC capability and no listed bandwidth figure.

Q: Which processor is still in production?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 3750H is listed as active, while the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 is end-of-life. The Xeon was released in September 2014, and the Ryzen in January 2019.

Q: Do either of these CPUs have integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H includes integrated graphics, specifically Radeon Vega 10. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU for display output.

# The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H is the better all-around processor for most users, while the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 serves a narrow but demanding niche.

The Ryzen 7 3750H wins three of the four head-to-head benchmarks, including both single-core tests and the R15 multi-core test. Its single-core advantages range from 14.1% to 41.7%, which means faster response in everyday tasks and better performance in the majority of software that is not perfectly multi-threaded. The integrated Radeon Vega 10 graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU in many systems, and the 35W TDP makes it suitable for mobile deployments where power efficiency matters. Its active production status also means ongoing availability and support.

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins only one benchmark, but it wins it decisively. The 51.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is a massive margin that reflects the Xeon's workstation-class memory subsystem and power budget. For users whose primary workload is long-duration multi-core rendering, video encoding, or scientific computing that scales perfectly across threads, the Xeon's quad-channel memory and 10 MB L3 cache make it the stronger choice. The 68.3 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than double what the Ryzen's dual-channel setup can likely provide, and that matters for memory-bound server workloads.

The average benchmark scores are nearly tied at 1709 versus 1690, and both sit at the 40th percentile of all CPUs. This means the two chips occupy the same overall performance tier, but their strengths and weaknesses are almost opposite. The Xeon is a specialist for heavy multi-core rendering; the Ryzen is a generalist that wins most head-to-head matchups.

Choose the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 if your work is dominated by sustained, all-core rendering workloads where its 51.7% multi-core advantage translates into real time savings. Choose the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H for virtually everything else: single-threaded performance, short multi-threaded bursts, integrated graphics, power efficiency, and a modern active platform.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 | AMD Ryzen 7 3750H |

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

| Manufacturer | Intel | AMD |

| Series | None | 3000 series |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.60 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 140 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 | AMD Socket FP5 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Zen+ |

| Codename | Haswell-EP | Picasso |

| Generation | Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP) | Ryzen 7 (Zen+ (Picasso)) |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 2,600 million | 4,940 million |

| Die Size | 356 mm² | 210 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 Cache | 10 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 68.3 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon Vega 10 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

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

| Release Date | 2014-09-07 | 2019-01-05 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | QGZYSR20P | YM3700C4T4MFG |