AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS vs Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 and AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum: one is a 2015 server/workstation part with 10 cores and a 105W TDP, the other a 2020 mobile processor with 8 cores and a 35W TDP. Despite their different origins, their average benchmark scores land nearly on top of each other—2587 for the Xeon and 2573 for the Ryzen—making their head-to-head comparison a study in how architecture and efficiency can offset raw core counts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark results in the data are from Cinebench R15, and the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS wins decisively in both tests. In the multicore test, the Ryzen scores 1863 against the Xeon’s 901, a delta of -51.6% from the Xeon’s perspective—meaning the AMD part is more than twice as fast in this workload. The single-core test shows a narrower but still substantial gap: the Ryzen scores 193 versus the Xeon’s 127, a -34.2% delta. This is a striking result for a mobile chip with two fewer cores and half the threads, and it sets the tone for the rest of the comparison.

Looking at the broader benchmark data, the Ryzen 9 4900HS also holds advantages in other tests that the Xeon simply does not have entries for. The Ryzen posts 6926 in Geekbench multicore and 1311 in Geekbench singlecore, while the Xeon’s Cinebench R20 and R23 scores—3757 and 8946 multicore, 530 and 1263 singlecore, respectively—show a different performance profile. The Xeon’s Cinebench R23 multicore score of 8946 is its strongest result, but without a matching Geekbench score from the Ryzen, direct comparison is limited to the R15 data. What the numbers do show is that the Ryzen’s wins are not marginal; they are overwhelming in the shared tests.

The average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story. The Xeon’s average is 2587, and the Ryzen’s is 2573, a difference of just 0.5% in favor of the Xeon when looking at the nearestRivals data. However, the Ryzen’s nearestRivals list shows a -0.6% delta against the Xeon, meaning the two are statistically tied in overall average performance despite the Ryzen’s massive Cinebench R15 lead. This suggests the Xeon’s strength lies in other workloads—likely those that scale with its higher thread count and larger L3 cache—while the Ryzen dominates in the specific tests where both were measured.

Architecture Differences

The two processors could not be more different under the hood. The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 uses the Haswell architecture (Haswell-EP codename) built on a 22 nm process at Intel’s foundry, packing 2,600 million transistors into a 356 mm² die. It has 10 cores and 20 threads, with base and boost clocks of 2.00 GHz and 2.60 GHz respectively, and a 105W TDP. Its cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a 25 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 over a quad-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, provides PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), and has no integrated graphics. It was released on 2015-05-31 with a launch MSRP of $1668, is now end-of-life, and targets the server/workstation segment. Its part number is SR22K.

The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS, by contrast, uses the Zen 2 architecture (Renoir codename) built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 9,800 million transistors in a 156 mm² die—a dramatically denser and more efficient design. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with base and boost clocks of 3.00 GHz and 4.30 GHz, and a 35W TDP. Its cache includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and an 8 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 over a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and it does not support ECC memory. The Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP6, provides PCIe Gen 3, and includes integrated Radeon Graphics with 512 SP. It was released on 2020-03-06, is still active in production, and targets the mobile segment. Its part number is 100-000000099. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

The architectural gap is stark: the Xeon relies on older, larger, and more power-hungry transistors, while the Ryzen benefits from a newer, smaller process node that allows higher clocks (4.30 GHz boost versus 2.60 GHz) at less than a third of the TDP. The Xeon’s advantages are its 25 MB L3 cache versus 8 MB, quad-channel memory versus dual-channel, and ECC support—features aimed at server reliability and bandwidth-heavy workloads. The Ryzen’s advantages are higher clock speeds, a denser transistor count, and integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and use case. In the shared Cinebench R15 benchmarks, the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS is the unequivocal winner, delivering 51.6% higher multicore performance and 34.2% higher single-core performance than the Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3. For any task that relies on the specific workloads captured by Cinebench R15—typically short-duration rendering or single-threaded responsiveness—the Ryzen is the superior choice by a wide margin.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a different story. Both chips sit at the 49th percentile of all CPUs, and their average scores differ by only 0.5% in the Xeon’s favor. This means that across a broader range of benchmarks, the two are effectively equivalent in overall performance. The Xeon’s higher thread count (20 versus 16), larger L3 cache (25 MB versus 8 MB), and quad-channel memory bandwidth (59.7 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s) likely compensate for its much lower clock speeds in workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound or scale well with additional threads. The Ryzen’s nearestRivals list shows a -0.6% delta against the Xeon, confirming the near-parity in aggregate.

Who should pick which? From the data alone, the Ryzen 9 4900HS is the pick for anyone prioritizing raw speed in the measured benchmarks, especially single-threaded performance or Cinebench-style rendering, and who needs integrated graphics or a low-power mobile form factor. The Xeon E5-4620 v3 is the pick for server/workstation scenarios where ECC memory support, quad-channel bandwidth, and a larger L3 cache are critical, and where the 105W TDP is not a constraint. The Ryzen’s 35W TDP versus the Xeon’s 105W TDP is a massive efficiency advantage that cannot be ignored in mobile or compact builds.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 has an average benchmark score of 2587, while the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS scores 2573. The difference is 0.5% in favor of the Xeon, and the two are effectively tied in aggregate.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in a shared test?

A: In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS scores 1863 versus the Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3’s 901, a delta of -51.6% from the Xeon’s perspective. This is the largest margin in any directly comparable benchmark.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do the memory buses differ between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 uses a quad-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS uses a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS includes integrated Radeon Graphics with 512 SP. The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 has a TDP of 105W, while the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS has a TDP of 35W. The Ryzen draws significantly less power.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS wins in every benchmark where both chips were directly measured. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it is 51.6% ahead of the Xeon, and in Cinebench R15 single-core, it is 34.2% ahead. Its Geekbench scores—6926 multicore and 1311 single-core—further demonstrate strong performance in those tests, though the Xeon has no Geekbench entries for comparison. The Ryzen also wins on efficiency, with a 35W TDP versus the Xeon’s 105W, and it includes integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely. Its higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus 2.60 GHz gives it a clear edge in single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads.

The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 wins in areas that are not directly benchmarked in the shared test set but are evident from its specifications. It has 25 MB of L3 cache versus the Ryzen’s 8 MB, quad-channel memory versus dual-channel, and ECC memory support—all features that matter in server and workstation environments. Its 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the Ryzen’s 51.2 GB/s, and its 10 cores and 20 threads provide more parallel execution resources than the Ryzen’s 8 cores and 16 threads. The Xeon’s average benchmark score of 2587 is slightly higher than the Ryzen’s 2573, indicating that in the broader benchmark universe, the Xeon holds its own or edges ahead. The Xeon also supports 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), which the Ryzen does not match in the data.

In practical terms, the Ryzen 9 4900HS is the winner for mobile workstations, compact desktops, or any scenario where power draw and integrated graphics are priorities. The Xeon E5-4620 v3 is the winner for rack-mounted servers, memory-heavy databases, or workloads that benefit from ECC reliability and quad-channel throughput. The data shows a clear trade-off: the Ryzen dominates in speed and efficiency, while the Xeon offers server-grade features and a marginal edge in average benchmark scores.