AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS vs Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS and the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 represent two very different philosophies in processor design: one is a modern, power-efficient mobile part, while the other is a legacy server/workstation workhorse. Despite their contrasting origins, the benchmark data shows they land in a remarkably similar performance tier, with the AMD chip holding a narrow edge in the average benchmark score. The Ryzen 7 4800HS achieves an average score of 2557, while the Xeon E5-4640 v3 sits just behind at 2550, a difference of only 0.3%. This proximity in overall performance, despite their architectural differences, makes for a fascinating comparison of how far fabrication and core design have come.

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 2557, which is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3's average score of 2550. Both processors sit in the 49th percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are statistically near-identical in overall compute capability.

Q: Which processor is the clear winner in multi-core rendering tasks?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS dominates in the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, scoring 1700.5 compared to the Intel Xeon's 888. This represents a significant 91.5% advantage for the AMD chip, showing that its 8-core, 16-thread Zen 2 architecture vastly outperforms the Xeon's 12-core, 24-thread Haswell design in this specific workload.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap as large as the multi-core gap?

A: The gap is still substantial, but less dramatic. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ryzen 7 4800HS scores 186.5, which is 49.2% higher than the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3's score of 125. This highlights the massive improvement in instructions-per-clock and clock speed in the newer AMD architecture.

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two chips?

A: The Ryzen 7 4800HS is built on TSMC's 7 nm process with the Zen 2 architecture, featuring 9,800 million transistors. In contrast, the Xeon E5-4640 v3 uses Intel's 22 nm Haswell-EP architecture with only 2,600 million transistors. The AMD chip also has a much higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz versus the Xeon's 2.60 GHz.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon offer any advantages in platform features?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 supports ECC memory and has a quad-channel memory bus with a higher theoretical bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, compared to the Ryzen's dual-channel 51.2 GB/s. It also offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, which is typical for a server platform.

Q: Which processor is more suitable for a high-end desktop versus a server environment?

A: Based on the data, the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS, with its mobile segment designation and integrated Radeon Graphics, is clearly aimed at high-performance laptops. The Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3, being a server/workstation part with ECC support and a high launch MSRP, is designed for mission-critical reliability, though its benchmark performance is now significantly outclassed by the mobile AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental design philosophies of these two CPUs are separated by nearly five years of technological progression. The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS is a 2020 product built on the current-generation 7 nm process at TSMC, packing 9,800 million transistors into a compact 156 mm² die. This allows AMD to achieve high clock speeds and efficiency within a 45 W TDP. The architecture is Zen 2, which brought significant improvements to IPC over previous generations. In contrast, the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3, released in 2015, uses the older 22 nm Haswell-EP architecture, with a much larger 356 mm² die but a lower transistor count of 2,600 million.

The core configurations tell a story of different scaling approaches. The AMD chip has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The Intel chip has more physical cores (12) and threads (24), but its base clock is drastically lower at 1900.00 MHz and its boost clock only reaches 2.60 GHz. This clock speed disparity is the single biggest factor in the performance differences. The cache hierarchies also differ: the Ryzen uses a modern layout with 512 KB L2 per core and a shared 8 MB L3, while the Xeon has a larger 30 MB shared L3 cache but a smaller 256 KB L2 per core.

Platform support diverges significantly. The Ryzen 7 4800HS uses the AMD Socket FP6 and supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with no ECC support. It also includes integrated Radeon Graphics with 448 SPs, making it a self-contained APU. The Xeon E5-4640 v3 uses the Intel Socket 2011-3, supports only DDR4 in a quad-channel configuration, and mandates ECC memory for reliability. It has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for any display output, and offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes for expansion. The production status also differs: the Ryzen is active, while the Xeon is end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data provided paints a stark picture of generational dominance in raw compute. The most dramatic difference appears in the Cinebench R15 multi-core test. Here, the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS scores 1700.5, while the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 manages only 888. This 91.5% delta is a remarkable outlier in the benchmark database, especially considering the Xeon has 50% more physical cores. The data implies that the Xeon's low clock speed and older architecture severely hamper its multi-threaded scaling, making the Ryzen's 8 cores more efficient than the Xeon's 12 cores in this particular render workload.

The single-core Cinebench R15 test shows a similar, albeit smaller, gap. The Ryzen 7 4800HS achieves a score of 186.5, which is 49.2% higher than the Xeon's 125. This result is a direct consequence of the clock speed advantage (4.20 GHz vs 2.60 GHz) and the superior IPC of the Zen 2 architecture over Haswell. The data suggests that even in lightly-threaded tasks, the older Intel platform cannot compete with the modern AMD design.

It is important to note that the benchmark comparison is limited to these two Cinebench R15 tests. The Xeon has additional benchmark scores for Cinebench R20 and R23, but no comparable data exists for the Ryzen in the provided fact pack. The Ryzen has Geekbench scores, but the Xeon does not. Therefore, the "wins" count of 2 for AMD and 0 for Intel is based solely on the head-to-head data available, which is decisive in favor of the AMD chip.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous in its verdict for performance: the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS is the superior processor. It wins both available head-to-head benchmarks by significant margins, achieving a 91.5% lead in multi-core and a 49.2% lead in single-core performance. The overall average benchmark scores confirm this, with the Ryzen holding a 0.3% edge over the Xeon. The Ryzen 7 4800HS achieves this with a fraction of the power envelope (45 W vs 105 W) and in a mobile form factor.

The only context where the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 makes sense is in legacy server environments where ECC memory support and quad-channel bandwidth are non-negotiable, and where the specific workload does not require high single-thread performance. However, for any general compute task, rendering, or modern application use, the Ryzen 7 4800HS is the clear choice based on the benchmark evidence. The Xeon's higher launch MSRP of $2859 does not translate into any performance advantage in the tests conducted.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences between the two processors, based solely on the provided data.

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS | Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 |

|:--- |:--- |:--- |

| Manufacturer | AMD | Intel |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Haswell |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

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

| Die Size | 156 mm² | 356 mm² |

| Cores / Threads | 8 / 16 | 12 / 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 1900.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 105 W |

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

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, LPDDR4 | DDR4 |

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

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

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics 448SP | None |

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

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

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

| Part Number | 100-000000098 | SR22L |

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark results, the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS is the winner in all compute-intensive workloads that were tested. Its massive lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core (91.5%) makes it the ideal choice for rendering, 3D modeling, and other heavily-threaded creative applications. Its single-core advantage (49.2%) also makes it better suited for general desktop responsiveness, office productivity, and any software that relies on fast single-thread execution. The Ryzen's lower TDP and integrated graphics also make it the only viable option for an ultraportable high-performance laptop.

The Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3, despite its benchmark losses, has a specific niche where it wins based on platform features rather than raw speed. Its support for ECC memory is critical for error-free data processing in server and workstation environments. Its quad-channel memory bus provides higher theoretical bandwidth (59.7 GB/s) which can be beneficial in memory-heavy workloads that were not part of the head-to-head testing. The presence of 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes also allows for more expansion cards, such as multiple GPUs or specialized accelerators. For a legacy server that requires these specific reliability and expansion features, the Xeon remains a functional, though end-of-life, option.