AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS vs Intel Xeon W-2125 Comparison

The Intel Xeon W-2125 and AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS occupy different corners of the processor market, yet their benchmark data reveals a surprisingly clear performance hierarchy. The Ryzen 7 4800HS wins three of the four head-to-head comparisons, often by substantial margins, while the Xeon W-2125 manages only a fractional victory in a single-core test. The average benchmark scores place the Xeon at 2623 and the Ryzen at 2557, a difference of roughly 2.6%, which masks the far larger swings seen in individual workloads. The Ryzen 7 4800HS is the faster processor in almost every measurable scenario, despite being designed for mobile systems with a 45 W TDP versus the Xeon’s 120 W desktop workstation figure.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic gap appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core. The Ryzen 7 4800HS scores 1700.5, while the Xeon W-2125 manages 852. That is a 49.9% deficit for the Intel part, meaning the AMD chip delivers nearly double the multi-threaded rendering performance. This result aligns with the core count difference: eight cores and sixteen threads for the Ryzen against four cores and eight threads for the Xeon. The Ryzen’s 7 nm process and Zen 2 architecture allow it to sustain higher throughput despite a much lower power envelope.

Single-core Cinebench R15 also favors AMD, though by a smaller margin. The Ryzen scores 186.5 versus the Xeon’s 120, a 35.7% advantage. This is noteworthy because single-core tests typically reward higher clock speeds. The Xeon has a 4.50 GHz boost clock against the Ryzen’s 4.20 GHz, yet the Ryzen still wins decisively. The data indicates that architectural efficiency, not raw frequency, drives this outcome. The Zen 2 design extracts more work per clock cycle than the older Skylake core.

Geekbench multi-core follows the same pattern. The Ryzen 7 4800HS posts 7019, while the Xeon W-2125 records 4988. The delta is 28.9% in favor of AMD. This test includes memory and cache-sensitive workloads, and the Ryzen’s larger transistor count (9,800 million versus no listed figure for the Xeon) and smaller die size (156 mm² versus 484 mm²) suggest a more integrated design that reduces latency.

The only Intel win comes in Geekbench single-core, where the Xeon scores 1323 against the Ryzen’s 1320. The delta is 0.2%, which is statistically negligible. This result shows that the two chips are essentially tied in lightly threaded integer performance, but it does not offset the multi-core losses. The Ryzen leads by 99.8% of the Xeon’s score in this test, yet trails by 28.9% in the multi-core version.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the Xeon’s Cinebench R20 scores are 3551 multi-core and 501 single-core, while its R23 results are 8455 multi-core and 1193 single-core. The Ryzen 7 4800HS has no R20 or R23 entries in the database, so direct comparison is impossible for those tests. However, the R15 and Geekbench data consistently show AMD ahead, and the average benchmark score difference of 66 points (2623 for Intel, 2557 for AMD) is driven by the fact that the Ryzen’s four recorded scores are all high, while the Xeon’s eight scores include several lower multi-core results.

Nearest rival data adds context. The Xeon W-2125 sits within 0.7% of the Intel Core i9-8950HK and Core i7-5820K, and it is 0.6% behind the Core i7-1195G7. This suggests the Xeon performs like a mid-range laptop or older desktop chip, not a top-tier workstation part. The Ryzen 7 4800HS, meanwhile, is 0.6% behind the Ryzen 9 4900HS and 1.1% ahead of the Core i3-10325, placing it in the upper-middle tier of mobile processors. The Ryzen’s 49th percentile ranking matches the Xeon’s, but with a much higher ceiling in multi-threaded tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS wins all multi-core comparisons. It scores 1700.5 in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus 852 for the Intel Xeon W-2125, and 7019 in Geekbench multi-core versus 4988. The delta percentages are 49.9% and 28.9% in favor of AMD.

Q: Is there any test where the Intel Xeon W-2125 wins?

A: Yes, the Xeon wins Geekbench single-core by a tiny margin. It scores 1323 against the Ryzen’s 1320, a 0.2% difference. This is the only head-to-head win for Intel, and it is effectively a tie.

Q: How do the core counts and thread counts compare?

A: The Ryzen 7 4800HS has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Xeon W-2125 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Ryzen’s double core count directly explains its large multi-core advantages.

Q: What are the TDP figures for each processor?

A: The Xeon W-2125 has a TDP of 120 W. The Ryzen 7 4800HS has a TDP of 45 W. Despite using less than half the power, the Ryzen outperforms the Xeon in multi-core tests.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Neither the Xeon W-2125 nor the Ryzen 7 4800HS has an unlocked multiplier. Both are locked parts.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The Xeon W-2125 was released on 2017-08-28. The Ryzen 7 4800HS was released on 2020-01-05. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the Ryzen is still active in production.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design philosophies. The Xeon W-2125 uses Intel’s Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-W variant, built on a 14 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. The Ryzen 7 4800HS uses AMD’s Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Renoir, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is substantial: 14 nm versus 7 nm. This allows the Ryzen to pack 9,800 million transistors into a 156 mm² die, while the Xeon’s die measures 484 mm² with no listed transistor count. The smaller, denser design gives AMD a significant efficiency advantage.

Cache layouts also differ. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core for the Intel, but the Ryzen uses 512 KB of L2 per core. The L3 cache is 8.25 MB shared on the Xeon versus 8 MB shared on the Ryzen. These are close figures, but the Xeon’s per-core L2 is larger, which can help in some single-threaded workloads. However, the Ryzen’s total cache hierarchy benefits from the lower-latency design inherent to Zen 2.

Memory support shows a clear split. The Xeon supports DDR4 with a quad-channel memory bus, yielding 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 with a dual-channel bus, providing 51.2 GB/s. The Xeon has more than double the memory bandwidth, which helps in server-style workloads that stream large datasets. Yet the Ryzen’s lower bandwidth does not prevent it from winning multi-core benchmarks, suggesting that compute throughput, not memory bandwidth, is the limiting factor in these tests.

ECC memory is another divergence. The Xeon supports ECC, making it suitable for workstation and server reliability requirements. The Ryzen does not support ECC. This is a key architectural feature for certain professional use cases, even if it does not affect raw benchmark scores.

PCIe support also differs. The Xeon offers PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen lists PCIe Gen 3 without a lane count. The Xeon’s higher lane count supports more expansion cards and NVMe drives, which is typical for workstation platforms. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon Graphics with 448 streaming processors, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Ryzen’s iGPU makes it a complete APU package, while the Xeon requires a discrete GPU.

The socket types are incompatible: Intel Socket 2066 for the Xeon versus AMD Socket FP6 for the Ryzen. The Xeon is a server/workstation part, the Ryzen is a mobile part. This placement explains the TDP gap and the release timing, with the Xeon launching in 2017 and the Ryzen in 2020.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS is the faster processor for general and multi-threaded workloads. It wins three of four head-to-head tests, with decisive margins in Cinebench R15 multi-core (49.9% ahead) and Geekbench multi-core (28.9% ahead). The Xeon W-2125’s only victory is a 0.2% edge in Geekbench single-core, which is within measurement noise.

The Ryzen achieves this with a 45 W TDP, less than half the Xeon’s 120 W TDP. It also uses a more advanced 7 nm process and a smaller die, which explains the efficiency. The Xeon’s strengths lie in memory bandwidth (85.3 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s), ECC support, and PCIe lane count. These features matter for specific workstation tasks, but they do not translate into higher benchmark scores.

For users who prioritize raw performance in rendering, encoding, or compilation, the Ryzen 7 4800HS is the clear choice based on recorded data. For users who need ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, or the Intel Socket 2066 platform, the Xeon remains relevant, but its performance ceiling is lower. The Ryzen’s average benchmark score of 2557 is only 66 points below the Xeon’s 2623, yet the distribution of scores heavily favors AMD in multi-core scenarios.

The production status also matters. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the Ryzen is active. This suggests the Xeon is legacy hardware, while the Ryzen represents current technology. The Ryzen’s integrated graphics add functionality that the Xeon lacks entirely.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: Xeon W-2125 has 4, Ryzen 7 4800HS has 8.
• Threads: Xeon has 8, Ryzen has 16.
• Base clock: Xeon at 4.00 GHz, Ryzen at 2.90 GHz.
• Boost clock: Xeon at 4.50 GHz, Ryzen at 4.20 GHz.
• TDP: Xeon at 120 W, Ryzen at 45 W.
• Socket: Intel Socket 2066 versus AMD Socket FP6.
• Architecture: Skylake versus Zen 2.
• Process node: 14 nm (Intel) versus 7 nm (TSMC).
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC.
• Transistors: Not listed for Xeon, 9,800 million for Ryzen.
• Die size: 484 mm² for Xeon, 156 mm² for Ryzen.
• L2 cache per core: 1 MB for Xeon, 512 KB for Ryzen.
• L3 cache: 8.25 MB shared for Xeon, 8 MB shared for Ryzen.
• Memory bus: Quad-channel for Xeon, dual-channel for Ryzen.
• Memory bandwidth: 85.3 GB/s for Xeon, 51.2 GB/s for Ryzen.
• ECC memory: Supported on Xeon, not supported on Ryzen.
• PCIe: Gen 3 with 48 lanes for Xeon, Gen 3 without lane count for Ryzen.
• Integrated graphics: None for Xeon, Radeon Graphics 448SP for Ryzen.
• Market segment: Server/Workstation for Xeon, Mobile for Ryzen.
• Production status: End-of-life for Xeon, Active for Ryzen.
• Release date: 2017-08-28 for Xeon, 2020-01-05 for Ryzen.
• Launch MSRP: $444 for Xeon, none listed for Ryzen.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 7 4800HS wins in multi-threaded rendering. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 49.9% lead, which translates to faster video exports, 3D scene renders, and batch photo processing. The Geekbench multi-core win of 28.9% reinforces this for general productivity tasks that scale across cores.

The Ryzen also wins in single-threaded Cinebench R15 by 35.7%, indicating better per-core efficiency for lightly threaded applications like some legacy software or single-threaded scripts. The 7 nm process and Zen 2 architecture deliver higher instructions per clock than Skylake.

The Xeon W-2125 wins in Geekbench single-core by 0.2%, which is negligible. However, the Xeon’s architectural features give it advantages outside benchmarks. The quad-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth suits databases, large in-memory analytics, and virtualized workloads that demand high data throughput. The ECC support provides error correction for critical financial or scientific computing, where a corrupted bit is unacceptable. The 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes allow multiple GPUs, high-speed networking cards, and NVMe storage arrays, making it a viable host for a compact workstation or server node.

The Xeon also has a higher base and boost clock (4.00 GHz and 4.50 GHz versus 2.90 GHz and 4.20 GHz), which helps in workloads that are latency-bound and cannot use many threads, even if the Geekbench score shows the Ryzen is close.

The Ryzen’s integrated Radeon Graphics with 448 streaming processors provides a display output without a discrete GPU, which is valuable for thin-and-light laptops. Its mobile segment and active production status mean it is found in current devices, while the Xeon requires a legacy motherboard and is no longer manufactured.

In summary, the Ryzen 7 4800HS is the performance leader in every multi-core and most single-core tests. The Xeon W-2125 holds niche advantages in memory bandwidth, ECC, and PCIe expansion, but these do not overcome its compute deficit. The data recommends the Ryzen for anyone seeking raw speed, and the Xeon only for specific workstation requirements that demand its unique platform features.