AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS vs Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along workload type. The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS wins every recorded head-to-head test, and the margin is substantial in both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD part scores 1863 against 873 for the Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3, a 113.4% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it is a doubling of throughput in a heavily threaded rendering workload.

Single-threaded performance tells a similar story, though with a smaller gap. The Ryzen 9 4900HS records 193 in Cinebench R15 single-core, while the Xeon E5-2630 v3 manages 123. That is a 56.9% delta in favor of AMD. The Intel part was designed for server density and sustained multi-socket workloads, not for raw single-thread responsiveness, and the data reflects that.

Beyond the head-to-head results, the broader benchmark records reinforce the split. The Ryzen 9 4900HS holds an average benchmark score of 2573 across all recorded tests, while the Xeon E5-2630 v3 averages 2507. The AMD chip sits in the 49th percentile of all CPUs, as does the Intel part, but the Ryzen achieves that position with a mobile 35-watt design, whereas the Xeon requires an 85-watt envelope.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward: the Ryzen 9 4900HS wins every measured performance contest, and it does so while consuming less than half the thermal design power. The Xeon E5-2630 v3 offers no recorded benchmark victory, but it brings platform-level capabilities that the Ryzen lacks, namely ECC memory support and quad-channel memory bandwidth. For workloads that depend on memory bandwidth rather than raw core speed, the Xeon's 59.7 GB/s quad-channel configuration edges out the Ryzen's 51.2 GB/s dual-channel setup, though no benchmark in the database directly measures that difference.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Renoir codename, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 9,800 million transistors into a 156 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 uses the Haswell architecture under the Haswell-EP codename, built on Intel's 22 nm process. It contains 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The contrast is stark: AMD fits nearly four times as many transistors into less than half the silicon area.

Both parts have 8 cores and 16 threads, so the thread count is identical. The cache layouts differ significantly. The Ryzen 9 4900HS provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Xeon E5-2630 v3 also has 64 KB of L1 per core but only 256 KB of L2 per core, while its shared L3 expands to 20 MB. The Xeon's larger L3 cache is typical of server parts, which often benefit from larger shared pools for frequently accessed data across many threads. The Ryzen compensates with a smaller but newer cache hierarchy, and the benchmark results suggest that the newer design is more effective in practice.

Clock speeds follow the architectural gap. The Ryzen 9 4900HS runs at a 3.00 GHz base and boosts to 4.30 GHz. The Xeon E5-2630 v3 runs at 2.40 GHz base and boosts to 3.20 GHz. The Ryzen's 1.1 GHz higher boost clock is a major factor in its single-threaded dominance. Power draw moves in the opposite direction: the Ryzen is rated at 35 W TDP, the Xeon at 85 W TDP. The Ryzen achieves higher performance at less than half the power budget, a direct result of the 7 nm process versus 22 nm.

Memory support shows a reverse split. Both support DDR4, but the Ryzen uses a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The Xeon uses a quad-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and full ECC memory support. The Xeon also offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Ryzen provides PCIe Gen 3 without a lane count specified in the database. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon Graphics with 512 shader processors; the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all.

The socket and platform targets differ completely. The Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP6 and is classified as a mobile part. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3 and is classified as a server/workstation part. The Ryzen was released on 2020-03-06 and remains active in production. The Xeon was released on 2014-09-07 and is end-of-life. The Xeon had a launch MSRP of $667, while the Ryzen's launch MSRP is not recorded.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance winner: the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS outperforms the Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 in every head-to-head benchmark available. The multi-core margin of 113.4% and the single-core margin of 56.9% are both decisive. For any workload measured in this database, the Ryzen is the faster processor.

But the verdict depends on the platform requirements. If the workload needs ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, or a server-class socket with 40 PCIe lanes, the Xeon E5-2630 v3 remains the only option of the two. The Ryzen 9 4900HS cannot be installed on Socket 2011-3, cannot run ECC memory, and does not offer the same memory bandwidth ceiling.

For mobile or compact systems where power efficiency and raw speed matter more than memory integrity features, the Ryzen 9 4900HS is the obvious choice. It delivers more than double the multi-core performance at less than half the TDP. The Xeon's 85 W TDP and end-of-life status make it difficult to recommend for new builds unless the specific server features are non-negotiable.

The average benchmark scores place both parts at the 49th percentile, but that parity is misleading. The Ryzen achieves parity while drawing 35 W and running in a mobile form factor. The Xeon requires 85 W and a server platform to match that average. In any direct comparison, the Ryzen wins every recorded test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: Both have exactly 8 cores and 16 threads. The core count is identical.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the performance gap in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen 9 4900HS scores 1863 against 873 for the Xeon, a 113.4% advantage for AMD.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen 9 4900HS boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the Xeon E5-2630 v3 boosts to 3.20 GHz.

Q: Is the Xeon E5-2630 v3 still in production?

A: No, the Xeon is marked as end-of-life. The Ryzen 9 4900HS is still active in production.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Ryzen 9 4900HS includes Radeon Graphics with 512 shader processors. The Xeon has no integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct head-to-head benchmark results, and the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS wins both. The first is Cinebench R15 multi-core. The Ryzen scores 1863, the Xeon scores 873. The delta is 113.4%, meaning the Ryzen more than doubles the Xeon's output in this threaded render. That result aligns with the clock speed and architecture differences: the Ryzen has a 4.30 GHz boost versus 3.20 GHz, and it uses a much newer 7 nm Zen 2 design against the 22 nm Haswell architecture.

The second head-to-head test is Cinebench R15 single-core. The Ryzen scores 193, the Xeon scores 123. The delta is 56.9%. This is a smaller margin than the multi-core test, but still a decisive win for AMD. Single-core performance is heavily dependent on clock speed and instruction efficiency, and the Ryzen's 1.1 GHz boost advantage shows up directly here.

The Xeon E5-2630 v3 also has recorded results in Cinebench R20 and R23, but the Ryzen 9 4900HS has no corresponding entries in those tests, so no direct comparison is possible. The Xeon scores 3640 in R20 multi-core and 513 in R20 single-core, plus 8668 in R23 multi-core and 1223 in R23 single-core. These numbers stand alone in the database without a Ryzen counterpart.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each part provides additional context. The Ryzen 9 4900HS sits within 0.9% of the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE, which holds the highest average score among its neighbors at 2596. The Ryzen also trails the Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 and Intel Xeon E-2174G by 0.6% each, and it leads the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS by 0.6%. The Xeon E5-2630 v3, meanwhile, trails the Intel Xeon E5-2643 v3 by 0.2% and the Intel Xeon E-2144G by 0.3%, while leading the Intel Core i5-1155G7 by 0.4% and the Intel Core i5-9500T by 0.6%. Both parts occupy the same performance neighborhood, but the Ryzen does so from a mobile socket with far lower power draw.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows where the two processors diverge. The process node is the most fundamental difference: AMD uses 7 nm from TSMC, Intel uses 22 nm from its own foundry. Transistor count follows: the Ryzen has 9,800 million transistors, the Xeon has 2,600 million. Die size reverses the trend: the Ryzen is 156 mm², the Xeon is 356 mm².

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Ryzen has a 3.00 GHz base clock and a 4.30 GHz boost clock. The Xeon has a 2.40 GHz base clock and a 3.20 GHz boost clock. TDP moves in the opposite direction: the Ryzen is rated at 35 W, the Xeon at 85 W.

Cache configuration differs in L2 and L3. The Ryzen has 512 KB of L2 per core, the Xeon has 256 KB per core. The Ryzen has 8 MB of shared L3, the Xeon has 20 MB of shared L3. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core.

Memory support differs on bus width and ECC. The Ryzen uses dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. The Xeon uses quad-channel DDR4 with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. PCIe is Gen 3 for both, but the Xeon specifies 40 lanes from the CPU while the Ryzen does not list a lane count.

Integrated graphics are exclusive to the Ryzen, which includes Radeon Graphics with 512 shader processors. The Xeon has none. Socket and market segment differ completely: the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP6 and targets mobile, the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3 and targets server/workstation. Production status also differs: the Ryzen is active, the Xeon is end-of-life. The Xeon had a launch MSRP of $667; the Ryzen's launch MSRP is not recorded.