AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X vs Intel Xeon Silver 4116 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a remarkably consistent picture: the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X wins every single head-to-head benchmark in this comparison, yet the two processors land in the exact same percentile tier. Both sit at the 56th percentile among all CPUs, with the Intel Xeon Silver 4116 posting an average benchmark score of 3733 against the AMD’s 3673. The Ryzen’s advantage is narrow but uniform—a 2.4% lead across all six Cinebench tests, ranging from 12908 versus 12908 in R23 multi-core to 1822 versus 1867 in R23 single-core. For workloads measured by Cinebench, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X is the clear pick. The Intel Xeon Silver 4116, however, brings 12 cores and 24 threads against the AMD’s 8 cores and 16 threads, along with a server/workstation market segment designation and a 3647 socket. The data suggests the Xeon’s value lies in platform positioning rather than raw Cinebench output. A buyer targeting dense multi-threaded server workloads might favor the Xeon for its core count and ECC memory support on a scalable Xeon platform, while the Ryzen offers a higher base clock (3.40 GHz versus 2.10 GHz), a higher boost clock (3.80 GHz versus 3.00 GHz), and an unlocked multiplier for enthusiasts. The verdict from the numbers alone: the Ryzen wins every measured benchmark, but the Xeon wins on core count and server pedigree.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is generational and philosophical. The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 is built on Skylake-SP, a 14 nm design from Intel with 8,000 million transistors, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X uses the original Zen architecture (Summit Ridge), also on 14 nm but manufactured by GlobalFoundries with 4,800 million transistors. The transistor counts diverge sharply—8 billion versus 4.8 billion—reflecting the Xeon’s larger, more complex die layout despite the AMD chip carrying a disclosed die size of 213 mm². Cache hierarchies differ in structure: the Intel part provides 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16.5 MB of shared L3, while the AMD part offers 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The AMD’s larger L1 per core hints at a different fetch/decode philosophy, while the Xeon’s larger L2 per core suggests deeper per-core buffering. Both support DDR4 memory and ECC, but the AMD chip specifies dual-channel memory with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Xeon’s memory bus, bandwidth, and PCIe details are not listed in the data. The Ryzen is marked as production status "Active" and carries an unlocked multiplier; the Xeon’s multiplier is locked. Sockets could not be more different: Intel Socket 3647 for the Xeon versus AMD Socket AM4 for the Ryzen—these are not interchangeable platforms by any stretch. Release dates are close, with the AMD launching on 2017-06-28 and the Intel on 2017-07-10, but the architectural lineage diverges completely after that.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X wins all six head-to-head benchmarks. The deltas are consistent at 2.4% for most tests, with R15 single-core showing a 2.7% gap. The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 records zero wins.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon Silver 4116 have more cores than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X?

A: Yes. The Xeon Silver 4116 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Xeon’s core advantage does not translate into a Cinebench win, however.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores and percentiles for each chip?

A: The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 has an average benchmark score of 3733 and sits at the 56th percentile. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X has an average score of 3673 and also sits at the 56th percentile. Despite the AMD winning every head-to-head test, the averages place them in the same tier.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X boosts to 3.80 GHz, compared to the Intel Xeon Silver 4116’s 3.00 GHz. The AMD also has a higher base clock at 3.40 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel Xeon Silver 4116 is locked. This makes the Ryzen the only one of the two that can be overclocked via multiplier adjustment.

Q: What memory features do both processors share?

A: Both support DDR4 memory and have ECC memory support. The AMD chip specifies dual-channel memory with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel chip’s memory bus and bandwidth are not listed in the data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon Silver 4116 | AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X |

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

| Cores | 12 | 8 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 85 W | 95 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 3647 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Skylake (Skylake-SP) | Zen (Summit Ridge) |

| Generation | Xeon Silver (Skylake-SP) | Ryzen 7 (Zen (Summit Ridge)) |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 4,800 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 213 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16.5 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Not listed | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 42.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Not listed | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2017-07-10 | 2017-06-28 |

The two chips differ on every core specification except process node (both 14 nm) and memory support type (both DDR4). The Xeon draws less power at 85 W TDP versus 95 W, yet runs at significantly lower clocks. The AMD chip is the only one with a listed die size, memory bandwidth, PCIe configuration, and production status. The Xeon’s cache totals are larger in L2 and L3, but the AMD’s L1 per core is 50% larger.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite tells a story of narrow but absolute AMD dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X scores 1333 against the Intel Xeon Silver 4116’s 1301—a 2.4% margin. The single-core R15 test shows a slightly larger gap: 188 versus 183, a 2.7% difference. Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds exactly: multi-core shows 5555 versus 5421 (2.4% for AMD), and single-core shows 784 versus 765 (2.4%). Cinebench R23 repeats the same 2.4% delta in both tests: multi-core at 13227 against 12908, and single-core at 1867 against 1822. The uniformity of the 2.4% figure across four of six tests is striking—it suggests a consistent per-clock or per-thread efficiency advantage for the Zen architecture, rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Xeon’s 12 cores and 24 threads do not overcome the Ryzen’s higher clocks (3.40 GHz base, 3.80 GHz boost versus 2.10 GHz and 3.00 GHz) in these heavily threaded Cinebench runs. The AMD chip’s per-core L1 cache of 96 KB versus the Xeon’s 64 KB may contribute to the single-core wins, while the multi-core wins at 8 cores against 12 cores imply that the Ryzen’s per-thread performance is substantially higher—enough to offset a 50% core-count deficit. The data shows zero wins for the Intel part across the entire benchmark set, with the AMD chip taking all six. The average benchmark scores—3733 for Intel versus 3673 for AMD—appear to pull in other tests not listed in the head-to-head set, but within the Cinebench family, the Ryzen is uniformly ahead.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X wins every measured benchmark, so the use-case split must be inferred from specifications rather than test results. The Ryzen’s wins are concentrated in Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests, where it leads by 2.4% to 2.7% across R15, R20, and R23. This makes it the pick for rendering workloads, 3D modeling, and any application that scales with Cinebench-style throughput. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.40 GHz and 3.80 GHz) suggest responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks, and the unlocked multiplier offers headroom for overclocking—a feature the Xeon lacks entirely. The Ryzen’s 42.7 GB/s memory bandwidth and dual-channel configuration, along with 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, position it for desktop builds where memory throughput and expansion are manageable. On the Intel side, the Xeon Silver 4116 wins on core count (12 versus 8), thread count (24 versus 16), and cache capacity (16.5 MB L3 versus 16 MB, plus larger 1 MB L2 per core). It also carries a lower TDP of 85 W versus 95 W, which could matter in dense server chassis. The Xeon’s market segment is explicitly Server/Workstation, and it uses Intel Socket 3647—a platform designed for multi-socket scalability, ECC memory, and sustained server workloads. The data does not include server-specific benchmarks, so the Xeon’s wins are speculative but grounded in its architecture: more cores, more threads, and a server-oriented platform. For workloads that exceed 8 cores or require the Xeon’s platform features, the Intel chip is the logical choice; for every Cinebench-measured task in this dataset, the AMD is the winner. The percentile parity (both at 56) suggests that in the broader CPU landscape, these two chips occupy the same performance tier, but the Ryzen does so with fewer cores and higher clocks, while the Xeon relies on core count and server pedigree.