AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS vs Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data paints a decisive picture in direct comparison. The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS wins both head-to-head benchmarks, and it does so by substantial margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen 7 4800HS scores 1700.5 against the Xeon E5-2630 v3's 873, a staggering 48.7% advantage. That is not a marginal victory; it is a generational leap in throughput for heavily threaded workloads.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though with a slightly narrower gap. The Ryzen 7 4800HS posts 186.5 in Cinebench R15 single-core versus 123 for the Xeon, a 34% lead. This difference is crucial because single-core performance governs responsiveness in lightly threaded applications, legacy software, and many gaming scenarios. The Xeon's Haswell architecture, even at its boost clock of 3.20 GHz, simply cannot keep pace with the Zen 2 design's higher frequency and superior instructions-per-clock.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the Ryzen's dominance extends beyond the head-to-head tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ryzen 7 4800HS would project far ahead of the Xeon's 8668 score, given its 48.7% advantage in the older R15 test. The Xeon's single-core score of 1223 in Cinebench R23 is likewise far behind what the Ryzen's 34% single-core advantage implies. The Geekbench results, available only for the Ryzen 7 4800HS, show 7019 multi-core and 1320 single-core, reinforcing its position as a well-rounded performer.

When placed against their respective nearest rivals, both processors sit in remarkably similar overall positions. The Xeon E5-2630 v3 has an average benchmark score of 2507, with its closest competitor, the Intel Xeon E5-2643 v3, scoring 2511 (a 0.2% difference). The Ryzen 7 4800HS averages 2557, with the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS just 0.6% ahead at 2573. Both chips occupy the 49th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are statistically indistinguishable in aggregate performance despite the Ryzen's overwhelming victory in the direct comparison.

The head-to-head delta of 48.7% in multi-core is the single most important number in this dataset. It shows that the Ryzen 7 4800HS, despite being a mobile part with a 45 W TDP, delivers nearly double the multi-threaded performance of the 85 W server Xeon. This is not a close contest by any metric.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two processors is vast, spanning nearly six years of silicon evolution. The Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 is built on the Haswell-EP architecture, manufactured on Intel's 22 nm process with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. It uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform and targets the server and workstation market segment. Its production status is end-of-life, and it was released in September 2014.

In contrast, the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Renoir, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. It packs 9,800 million transistors into a 156 mm² die — a remarkable density improvement. The Ryzen uses the AMD Socket FP6 and targets the mobile segment. It remains in active production, having launched in January 2020.

The core configurations are identical on paper: both have 8 cores and 16 threads. However, the similarities end there. The Xeon's cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a large 20 MB shared L3 cache. The Ryzen 7 4800HS also has 64 KB of L1 per core but doubles the L2 to 512 KB per core while offering only 8 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's larger L3 cache reflects its server heritage, where large working sets benefit from more shared cache.

Clock speeds favor the Ryzen decisively. The Xeon runs at a 2.40 GHz base clock and 3.20 GHz boost. The Ryzen runs at 2.90 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost — a full 1 GHz higher at peak. This, combined with Zen 2's superior instructions-per-clock, explains the massive single-core advantage.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The Xeon supports DDR4 over a quad-channel memory bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. It also supports ECC memory, essential for data integrity in server workloads. The Ryzen 7 4800HS supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 over a dual-channel bus, providing 51.2 GB/s. It does not support ECC. The Xeon's higher bandwidth and ECC support are classic server features, while the Ryzen's dual-channel setup is typical of mobile parts.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, enabling extensive expansion for server configurations. The Ryzen offers Gen 3 PCIe but without specifying lane count, typical of a mobile processor with limited expansion needs. The Ryzen also includes integrated Radeon Graphics with 448 shader processors, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all.

The TDP gap is enormous: 85 W for the Xeon versus 45 W for the Ryzen. The Ryzen delivers superior performance while consuming nearly half the power, a signal of the efficiency gains from the 7 nm process and modern architecture. The Xeon's launch MSRP was $667; the Ryzen has no launch MSRP listed, reflecting its mobile OEM-focused distribution.

# The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS is the superior processor in nearly every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 34% and 48.7%, offers dramatically higher clock speeds, consumes less power, and comes from a more advanced manufacturing process. For anyone choosing between these two for a new system, the Ryzen 7 4800HS is the obvious pick.

However, the Xeon E5-2630 v3 retains relevance in specific legacy scenarios. Its quad-channel memory bus with ECC support and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes make it suitable for older server platforms where those features are non-negotiable. The 20 MB L3 cache, nearly triple the Ryzen's 8 MB, could benefit certain server workloads that rely heavily on shared cache. Its $667 launch MSRP positioned it as a mid-range server part, and it remains functional for those already invested in the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform.

The Ryzen 7 4800HS is the better choice for virtually all modern applications. Its 45 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, yet it outperforms a 85 W server chip from 2014. The integrated Radeon Graphics with 448SP provides display output without a discrete GPU, a feature the Xeon lacks entirely. For mobile professionals, students, or anyone needing strong multi-core performance in a portable form factor, the Ryzen wins outright.

For server administrators maintaining legacy infrastructure, the Xeon's ECC support and quad-channel memory bandwidth may justify its continued use. But as new deployments go, the Ryzen 7 4800HS represents the better technology by every benchmark metric available. The 49th percentile placement of both chips in the global CPU database suggests they are comparable in aggregate — but the head-to-head data reveals the Ryzen's dominance in the specific workloads tested. Choose the Ryzen for performance, the Xeon only if platform requirements demand it.

# Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 | AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS |

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

| Manufacturer | Intel | AMD |

| Series | null | 4000 series |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| TDP | 85 W | 45 W |

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

| Architecture | Haswell | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Haswell-EP | Renoir |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

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

| Die Size | 356 mm² | 156 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, LPDDR4 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon Graphics 448SP |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

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

| Release Date | 2014-09-07 | 2020-01-05 |

| Launch MSRP | $667 | null |

| Part Number | SR206 | 100-000000098 |

# FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS wins decisively, scoring 1700.5 versus 873 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, a 48.7% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the Ryzen in single-core workloads?

A: The Ryzen 7 4800HS scores 186.5 versus 123 in Cinebench R15 single-core, making it 34% faster than the Xeon E5-2630 v3.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 8 cores and 16 threads, but the Ryzen achieves far higher clock speeds (4.20 GHz boost versus 3.20 GHz boost).

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Xeon has an 85 W TDP, while the Ryzen 7 4800HS consumes just 45 W, making the Ryzen significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS includes integrated graphics, featuring Radeon Graphics with 448SP. The Xeon has none.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ryzen 7 4800HS averages 2557, slightly ahead of the Xeon's 2507. Both sit at the 49th percentile of all CPUs.