AMD Ryzen 7 5825C vs Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, though modest, advantage for the AMD Ryzen 7 5825C across every Cinebench iteration tested. In the multi-core Cinebench R15 test, the AMD part scored 1247 against the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4’s 1217, a 2.5% lead. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 175 for AMD versus 171 for Intel, a 2.3% margin.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the gap remains stable. The Ryzen 7 5825C posts 5197 in multi-core, while the Xeon E5-1680 v4 reaches 5073, a 2.4% difference. In single-core R20, the AMD chip scores 733, the Intel 716, again a 2.4% edge. These numbers indicate that the AMD processor’s advantage is not confined to one type of workload; both threaded and lightly threaded tests show roughly the same relative performance gap.

The newest benchmark in the set, Cinebench R23, reinforces the trend. The Ryzen 7 5825C achieves 12376 in multi-core, versus 12080 for the Xeon, a 2.5% win. Single-core R23 shows 1747 for AMD and 1705 for Intel, also a 2.5% margin. Across all six head-to-head tests, the AMD Ryzen 7 5825C wins every round, with delta percentages ranging from 2.3% to 2.5%. The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 does not secure a single victory in this comparison.

These are not dramatic swings. A 2.5% multi-core difference in R23 translates to roughly 296 points, which is within run-to-run noise for many systems. However, the consistency across three different Cinebench versions and both single and multi-core subtests suggests a real, if small, performance advantage for the AMD part. The average benchmark score for the Ryzen 7 5825C is 3579, compared to 3494 for the Xeon, a difference of about 2.4%. Both CPUs sit at the 55th percentile among all tested processors, meaning they are statistically equivalent in overall standing despite the AMD chip’s slight numerical edge.

Notably, the nearest rivals for each part reinforce this picture. The Ryzen 7 5825C’s closest competitor is the Intel Core i9-9980HK, with a delta of 0.1% (score 3577 versus 3579). The Xeon E5-1680 v4’s nearest rival is the Intel Xeon E-2246G, at a 0.1% delta (3492 versus 3494). Both parts are surrounded by similarly performing CPUs, which further contextualizes the head-to-head results: the 5825C and the E5-1680 v4 are close enough that external factors like cooling, motherboard, and memory configuration could easily reverse the outcome in a specific system.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5825C wins with a score of 12376, while the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 scores 12080. The AMD part leads by 2.5%.

Q: Is the single-core performance difference larger or smaller than the multi-core difference?

A: The single-core differences are nearly identical to the multi-core margins. In Cinebench R15, the single-core delta is 2.3% (175 versus 171), while the multi-core delta is 2.5% (1247 versus 1217). In R20 and R23, both single and multi-core deltas are 2.4% and 2.5% respectively.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5825C has an average benchmark score of 3579, and the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 has an average of 3494. The difference is approximately 2.4%, with AMD ahead.

Q: Do both processors have the same overall percentile ranking?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 7 5825C and the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 sit at the 55th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: What is the closest rival to the AMD Ryzen 7 5825C?

A: The Intel Core i9-9980HK is the nearest rival, with an average score of 3577 and a delta of 0.1% relative to the 5825C’s 3579.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2246G is the nearest rival, with an average score of 3492 and a delta of 0.1% relative to the E5-1680 v4’s 3494.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The AMD Ryzen 7 5825C is built on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Cezanne-U, and manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It contains 10,700 million transistors on a 180 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 uses the Broadwell architecture, specifically Broadwell-EP, on Intel’s 14 nm process, with 3,400 million transistors on a 246 mm² die. The node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 14 nm, which explains why the AMD chip packs over three times as many transistors into a smaller physical area.

Cache hierarchies also differ. Both CPUs have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache is larger on the AMD part at 512 KB per core, versus 256 KB per core on the Intel. The shared L3 cache is 16 MB on the Ryzen 7 5825C and 20 MB on the Xeon E5-1680 v4. So the Intel chip has more total cache at the last level, but the AMD chip has more per-core L2. This can affect workloads that depend on fast access to frequently used data.

Memory support is another differentiator. Both support DDR4, but the AMD processor uses a dual-channel memory bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while the Intel Xeon uses a quad-channel bus with 76.8 GB/s. The Intel part also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the AMD chip. This makes the Xeon more suitable for error-sensitive environments, even though its raw bandwidth advantage is not reflected in the Cinebench scores.

PCIe connectivity differs sharply. The Ryzen 7 5825C provides PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon E5-1680 v4 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes. That is a fivefold difference in available lanes, which matters for systems with many NVMe drives, GPUs, or other expansion cards. The AMD chip also includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, whereas the Intel Xeon has no integrated graphics. The AMD part is a mobile segment CPU on Socket FP6, while the Intel part is a desktop segment CPU on Socket 2011-3.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of different design goals. The AMD Ryzen 7 5825C has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 4500 MHz. The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 has a higher base clock of 3400 MHz but a lower boost of 4000 MHz. The AMD chip relies on a lower base and a much higher boost, which is typical for a mobile-oriented design that can turbo when thermal headroom allows. The Intel part runs closer to its maximum at all times, consistent with a workstation Xeon.

Power envelopes are dramatically different. The AMD processor has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Intel Xeon is rated at 140 watts. That is nearly a tenfold difference. The AMD chip achieves its performance at a fraction of the power draw, which is a direct consequence of the newer 7 nm process and a more efficient architecture. The Intel Xeon’s higher TDP supports its quad-channel memory controller and 40 PCIe lanes, but it also means more heat and higher cooling requirements.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Ryzen 7 5825C is the faster processor in Cinebench workloads. It wins all six head-to-head tests with margins between 2.3% and 2.5%. Its average benchmark score is 3579, which is 85 points higher than the Xeon’s 3494. If the task is purely about raw CPU compute in rendering or similar multi-threaded applications, the AMD part is the better choice by a small but consistent margin.

However, the decision is not simply about benchmark scores. The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 offers features that the AMD chip lacks entirely: ECC memory support, quad-channel memory bandwidth at 76.8 GB/s, and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. These are not reflected in Cinebench scores, but they are critical for certain server or workstation configurations. The AMD Ryzen 7 5825C, with only 8 PCIe lanes and no ECC, cannot serve those use cases regardless of its 2.5% benchmark lead.

The power consumption difference is also decisive for many buyers. At 15 watts versus 140 watts, the AMD part is far more suitable for compact, passively cooled, or battery-powered systems. The Intel Xeon requires substantial cooling and a power supply that can handle a 140-watt TDP. For a mobile or embedded deployment, the AMD chip is the only viable option. For a stationary workstation where expansion capability and error-correcting memory are priorities, the Intel Xeon, despite its lower benchmark scores, is the more appropriate part.

The production status reinforces this split. The AMD Ryzen 7 5825C is listed as active, while the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 is end-of-life. This means the AMD part is still available for new designs, whereas the Intel part is being phased out. The launch MSRP for the Xeon E5-1680 v4 was $1723, but that figure is historical and does not reflect current market availability. No MSRP is recorded for the AMD chip, which is typical for a mobile OEM part.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ on nearly every specification field except for core and thread counts, which are identical at 8 cores and 16 threads. The base clock is 2000 MHz on the AMD part and 3400 MHz on the Intel part. The boost clock is 4500 MHz on AMD versus 4000 MHz on Intel. TDP is 15 watts for AMD and 140 watts for Intel. The socket is AMD Socket FP6 versus Intel Socket 2011-3.

The process node is 7 nm (TSMC) for AMD versus 14 nm (Intel) for the Xeon. Transistor count is 10,700 million for AMD versus 3,400 million for Intel. Die size is 180 mm² for AMD versus 246 mm² for Intel. L2 cache is 512 KB per core on AMD versus 256 KB per core on Intel. L3 cache is 16 MB shared on AMD versus 20 MB shared on Intel.

Memory bus is dual-channel on AMD with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, versus quad-channel on Intel with 76.8 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported on AMD but is supported on Intel. PCIe is Gen 3 with 8 lanes on AMD, versus Gen 3 with 40 lanes on Intel. Integrated graphics are present on AMD (Radeon Vega 8) and absent on Intel.

Market segment is mobile for AMD and desktop for Intel. Production status is active for AMD and end-of-life for Intel. Release dates differ: May 2022 for AMD, June 2016 for Intel. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $1723; the AMD part has none. The multiplier is locked on both.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 5825C wins in every benchmark recorded in the database. That includes all three Cinebench versions, both single and multi-core subtests. Its wins range from 2.3% to 2.5%, so in a purely computational race, it is the faster part. It also wins decisively on power efficiency: 15 watts versus 140 watts means it can sustain performance in thermally constrained environments where the Xeon would throttle or require aggressive cooling.

The AMD chip also wins on process technology. The 7 nm node with 10,700 million transistors gives it a transistor density advantage that the 14 nm Intel part cannot match. This translates into the higher boost clock of 4500 MHz and the lower power draw. For users who prioritize single-threaded responsiveness in a lightly cooled chassis, the Ryzen 7 5825C is the clear winner.

The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 wins on platform capability, not on raw CPU speed. Its quad-channel memory bus provides 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 50% higher than the AMD chip’s 51.2 GB/s. For memory-bound workloads like large database operations or high-performance computing tasks that stream data, this could matter even though Cinebench does not show it. Its 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes allow for multiple GPUs, high-speed NVMe arrays, or specialized accelerator cards. The AMD chip’s 8 lanes are restrictive for any serious expansion.

ECC memory support on the Intel part is a decisive factor for reliability-critical applications. Systems that cannot tolerate silent data corruption, such as financial modeling or scientific computing, require ECC, and the Xeon provides it. The AMD chip does not. The Intel part also has a higher base clock at 3400 MHz, which means predictable performance under sustained load without relying on boost behavior. Its larger 20 MB L3 cache may benefit workloads with a large working set that fits in cache.

The market segments reflect these strengths. The AMD Ryzen 7 5825C is a mobile processor, designed for laptops or compact devices where power and thermals are paramount. The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 is a desktop workstation part, built for machines that prioritize memory capacity, expansion, and error correction over efficiency. For a mobile deployment, the AMD chip is the only logical choice. For a stationary, expandable workstation with ECC requirements, the Intel Xeon is the appropriate pick, despite losing every Cinebench comparison.