AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE vs Intel Xeon Phi 7210 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE and the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 represent two radically different approaches to processor design, separated by nearly a decade of architectural philosophy. The data shows a clear split: the Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE dominates conventional computing workloads, while the Xeon Phi 7210 clings to a narrow lead in highly specialized, parallel data-processing tasks. With 14 benchmark wins for the AMD part and only 3 for the Intel part, the overall verdict is decisive, yet the specific numbers reveal where each chip’s unique strengths lie.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in single-thread performance, where the Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE posts a Passmark single-thread score of 3353 against the Xeon Phi 7210’s 460, a delta of 628.9% in favor of AMD. This gap is not an anomaly; it repeats across every Cinebench iteration. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD chip scores 2507 versus 876 for the Intel part, a 186.2% advantage. The Ryzen’s 4.60 GHz boost clock, against the Xeon Phi’s 1.50 GHz, makes the outcome predictable, but the magnitude is worth noting: the AMD part is nearly seven times faster in raw single-thread throughput.

Multi-core results tell a more nuanced story. The Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE wins every Cinebench multi-core test by approximately 186%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 17759 versus 6210 for the Xeon Phi 7210. This is counterintuitive given the Intel chip’s 64 cores and 256 threads, but the data is unambiguous: the AMD’s 8 cores and 16 threads, running at a base clock of 3.20 GHz, simply outperform the Xeon Phi’s massively parallel but slow (1.30 GHz base) architecture in these rendering workloads. The Passmark multithread score confirms this, with AMD winning 20870 to 7306, a 185.7% margin.

The Xeon Phi 7210 does find a few wins. Its most significant victory is in Passmark data compression, where it scores 332960 against AMD’s 252937, a 24% advantage. This is likely a function of its 256 threads, which can be leveraged for highly parallel compression algorithms. It also edges out the AMD chip in Passmark extended instructions (18359 vs 17029, a 7.2% lead) and integer math (84874 vs 84004, a mere 1% margin). These wins, however, are narrow and isolated.

In contrast, the AMD chip’s wins are often enormous. The Passmark data encryption score is 16937 for AMD versus 3455 for Intel, a 390.2% difference. The find prime numbers test shows a 400% advantage for AMD (50 vs 10). The floating-point math test is another blowout, with AMD scoring 46589 against Intel’s 29356, a 58.7% lead. Random string sorting goes to AMD by 205.6%, and physics simulation by 324.7%. These results paint a picture of a processor that is not just faster, but often several times faster, across a broad spectrum of general-purpose tasks.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Intel Xeon Phi 7210, with 64 cores and 256 threads, lose so badly in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The data shows that core count alone does not determine multi-core performance. The Xeon Phi 7210’s base clock is only 1.30 GHz with a 1.50 GHz boost, while the Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE runs at 3.20 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD chip scores 17759 versus 6210, a 186% advantage, indicating that the Ryzen’s higher per-core throughput is more valuable than the Xeon Phi’s raw thread count.

Q: What is the single biggest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest delta is in the Passmark single-thread test, where the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE scores 3353 and the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 scores 460. This represents a 628.9% advantage for the AMD part, highlighting the massive difference in per-core execution capability.

Q: Are there any workloads where the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 is the better choice?

A: Yes, the data indicates three specific areas. The Xeon Phi 7210 wins Passmark data compression (332960 vs 252937, a 24% lead), extended instructions (18359 vs 17029, a 7.2% lead), and integer math (84874 vs 84004, a 1% lead). These are highly parallel, specialized tasks that can take advantage of its 256 threads.

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

A: Despite the Xeon Phi’s wins, the average benchmark scores are very close. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE has an average score of 29656, while the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 has an average of 29245. This puts them at a near tie, with AMD leading by roughly 1.4%, and both are at the 81st percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What does the Passmark data encryption test reveal about the processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE is overwhelmingly superior in this test, scoring 16937 against the Xeon Phi’s 3455. This is a 390.2% difference, suggesting that the AMD chip’s architecture is far more efficient for cryptographic workloads, which often rely on strong single-thread performance and modern instruction sets.

Q: Is the Intel Xeon Phi 7210’s high thread count useful for general desktop use?

A: The benchmark data suggests not. In Passmark multithread, the AMD chip scores 20870 versus the Intel’s 7306, a 185.7% difference. Even in a multi-threaded workload, the Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE is nearly three times faster, indicating that the Xeon Phi’s threads are not effectively utilized in typical desktop tasks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two parts is vast. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE is built on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Cezanne, using a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 10,700 million transistors into a die size of 180 mm². In contrast, the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 uses the Knights Landing architecture on Intel’s 14 nm process, with 8,000 million transistors and no listed die size. The manufacturing process difference alone explains much of the performance-per-watt gap.

The core configurations could not be more different. The Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon Phi 7210 has 64 cores and 256 threads. However, the cache hierarchy reveals the AMD part’s advantage. The Ryzen has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a 16 MB L3 cache. The Xeon Phi has 32 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but its L3 cache is listed as null, meaning it does not have a shared L3 cache. This lack of a large shared cache is a significant handicap for the Intel part in many workloads.

Memory support also differs. Both support DDR4, but the AMD chip uses a dual-channel memory bus with a documented bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Xeon Phi’s memory bus and bandwidth are not specified in the data. Furthermore, the Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE does not support ECC memory, while the Xeon Phi 7210 does, a feature that is critical for certain server and workstation reliability requirements. The AMD chip also includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, whereas the Xeon Phi has no integrated graphics at all.

Specification Differences

The specifications diverge on nearly every measurable field. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 has 64 cores and 256 threads. The base clock is 3.20 GHz for AMD and 1.30 GHz for Intel; the boost clock is 4.60 GHz for AMD and 1.50 GHz for Intel. The TDP is a massive differentiator, with the AMD chip rated at 35 watts and the Intel part at 215 watts.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket AM4, while Intel uses Socket 3647. The process node differs, with AMD at 7 nm and Intel at 14 nm. The transistor count is 10,700 million for AMD and 8,000 million for Intel. The AMD chip’s L1 cache is 64 KB per core versus 32 KB per core for Intel, while both have 512 KB of L2 per core. The AMD chip has a 16 MB L3 cache, while the Xeon Phi has none listed. ECC memory support is absent on the AMD part and present on the Intel part. The AMD processor includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, while the Intel part has none. The market segment is Desktop for AMD and Server/Workstation for Intel. The release dates are also far apart, with the Intel part launching in 2016 and the AMD part in 2024.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE is the clear winner for general-purpose computing. It dominates in all Cinebench tests, both single and multi-core, by margins of roughly 186%. In Passmark, it wins multithread, single-thread, floating-point math, physics, random string sorting, data encryption, and find prime numbers. This makes it the superior choice for desktop productivity, content creation, software development, and any workload that benefits from high clock speeds and strong single-thread performance. Its 35-watt TDP also makes it vastly more efficient, especially when compared to the Xeon Phi’s 215-watt requirement.

The Intel Xeon Phi 7210 wins in exactly three areas: Passmark data compression, extended instructions, and integer math. These are highly specialized workloads that can leverage its 256 threads for massive parallelism. The data compression win is the most substantial, at 24%. This suggests that the Xeon Phi 7210 could be a niche tool for specific server-side tasks like large-scale data archiving or certain scientific computing applications that are heavily integer-based. Its ECC memory support is also a point in its favor for mission-critical server environments.

However, the overall picture is clear. The Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, and its victories are often by margins of 200% or more. The Xeon Phi 7210’s wins are narrow and confined to a small subset of tasks. For anyone building a system for typical desktop or workstation use, the data overwhelmingly supports the AMD part. The Xeon Phi 7210 remains a curiosity, a relic of a different era of processor design that found success only in the most parallel of workloads.