AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS vs Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 Comparison

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS is the decisive winner in every head-to-head comparison against the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3. With a 2-0 sweep in the shared tests, the mobile Ryzen part utterly outclasses the older server chip in both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. The Xeon’s only remaining advantage lies in platform-specific features like ECC memory support and quad-channel bandwidth, which are irrelevant to the performance metrics measured here.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result comes from the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, where the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS scores 1863 against the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3’s 888. This represents a 109.8% advantage for the Ryzen, meaning it more than doubles the Xeon’s rendering throughput. This is particularly notable given the Xeon’s architectural advantage in core count—12 cores and 24 threads versus the Ryzen’s 8 cores and 16 threads. The data indicates that the Ryzen’s Zen 2 architecture and higher clock speeds completely negate the Xeon’s two extra physical cores and eight extra threads in this workload.

Single-core performance is equally lopsided, though the margin is smaller in percentage terms. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ryzen 9 4900HS scores 193, while the Xeon E5-4640 v3 manages only 125. That is a 54.4% delta in favor of AMD. This gap is expected given the base and boost clocks: the Ryzen runs at 3.00 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost, while the Xeon is severely limited at 1900.00 MHz base and 2.60 GHz boost. The clock speed difference alone explains most of this single-threaded deficit, and the architectural efficiency of Zen 2 over Haswell compounds it.

Looking beyond the shared benchmarks, the separate benchmark pools reinforce the same conclusion. The Ryzen 9 4900HS posts a Geekbench multi-core score of 6926 and a single-core score of 1311. The Xeon E5-4640 v3 has no Geekbench results in the data, but its Cinebench R20 and R23 scores—3702 and 8816 multi-core, 522 and 1244 single-core, respectively—do not change the overall picture. The Ryzen’s average benchmark score of 2573 is slightly higher than the Xeon’s 2550, and both processors sit at the 49th percentile among all CPUs, placing them in the same overall performance tier despite the massive head-to-head deltas.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS wins decisively. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 1863 versus the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3’s 888, a 109.8% advantage. This holds despite the Xeon having 12 cores and 24 threads compared to the Ryzen’s 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How does single-core performance compare?

A: The Ryzen 9 4900HS is far ahead here as well. It scores 193 in Cinebench R15 single-core against the Xeon’s 125, a 54.4% lead. The Ryzen’s 4.30 GHz boost clock versus the Xeon’s 2.60 GHz boost clock is the primary driver.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The Ryzen 9 4900HS has an average benchmark score of 2573, while the Xeon E5-4640 v3 averages 2550. The Ryzen is also 0.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS and 0.9% behind the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4355GE in its nearest rival comparisons.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-4640 v3 have any performance wins?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS winning 2 benchmarks (Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core), with the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 winning 0.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon E5-4640 v3 offers higher theoretical memory bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s via quad-channel DDR4, compared to the Ryzen’s 51.2 GB/s over dual-channel memory. However, this does not translate into a benchmark win for the Xeon in the tested workloads.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS is listed as “Active,” while the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 is “End-of-life.” The Xeon was released in 2015, whereas the Ryzen launched in 2020.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: choose the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS for almost any performance-focused application. It wins every shared benchmark by a massive margin—109.8% in multi-core and 54.4% in single-core. The Ryzen also matches the Xeon in overall percentile ranking (49th) while delivering superior results in the specific tests where they overlap.

The Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 should only be selected if specific platform requirements override raw performance. The Xeon supports ECC memory (true, whereas the Ryzen does not) and offers quad-channel memory with a higher bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. It also has more cores (12 vs 8) and more threads (24 vs 16), which could matter in highly parallel server workloads that are not represented in these benchmarks. However, the existing data shows that even with those core advantages, the Xeon loses badly in Cinebench R15 multi-core, so the practical benefit is questionable.

For any user prioritizing speed, efficiency, or modern architecture, the Ryzen 9 4900HS is the clear choice. Its 7 nm process node, 35 W TDP, and 4.30 GHz boost clock make it a superior mobile processor. The Xeon’s 105 W TDP, 22 nm node, and 2.60 GHz boost clock show its age. The verdict is straightforward: the Ryzen wins on performance, and the Xeon’s only appeal is its legacy server feature set.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds are starkly different: the Ryzen runs at 3.00 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost, whereas the Xeon is at 1900.00 MHz base and 2.60 GHz boost. TDP is another major gap—the Ryzen draws 35 W, the Xeon draws 105 W.

The socket and platform are incompatible: the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP6, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. Cache configurations also diverge. Both have 64 KB L1 per core, but the Ryzen has 512 KB L2 per core versus the Xeon’s 256 KB. L3 cache is 8 MB shared on the Ryzen and 30 MB shared on the Xeon. Memory support is dual-channel for AMD and quad-channel for Intel, with bandwidths of 51.2 GB/s and 59.7 GB/s, respectively.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the Xeon (true) versus the Ryzen (false). The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon Graphics with 512 SPs, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Ryzen is an active mobile part with a part number of 100-000000099, while the Xeon is an end-of-life server chip with part number SR22L. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $2859, and the Ryzen has no launch MSRP listed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS is built on Zen 2 architecture with the codename Renoir, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 9,800 million transistors on a 156 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 uses Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm process at Intel, with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. This means the Ryzen fits nearly four times as many transistors on less than half the die area.

The Ryzen’s Zen 2 design features a higher L2 cache per core (512 KB vs 256 KB), but the Xeon compensates with a much larger shared L3 cache (30 MB vs 8 MB). The Ryzen is part of AMD’s 4000 series for mobile, while the Xeon belongs to the E5 v3 family for server/workstation. Both use DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3, but the Xeon offers 40 lanes (CPU only) versus the Ryzen’s unspecified lane count.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Ryzen integrates Radeon Graphics with 512 SPs, a feature absent on the Xeon. The Xeon’s Haswell architecture is from 2015, while the Ryzen’s Renoir is from 2020, representing a five-year manufacturing and design gap that explains the performance disparity.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS wins in every measured benchmark category. It dominates multi-core workloads, as shown by the 109.8% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core. It also dominates single-core tasks, with a 54.4% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core. The Ryzen’s higher clock speeds and newer architecture make it the clear winner for rendering, general computing, and any task that benefits from high IPC or boost frequencies. Its 35 W TDP also makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, whereas the Xeon’s 105 W TDP demands a desktop or server platform.

The Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 wins in platform-level features rather than raw benchmarks. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for error-sensitive server workloads, and offers quad-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth for memory-intensive applications. Its 12 cores and 24 threads provide more parallel resources on paper, and its 30 MB L3 cache could benefit workloads with large working sets. The Xeon also has a launch MSRP of $2859, confirming its enterprise positioning.

In practice, the Xeon’s advantages are theoretical given the benchmark results. The Ryzen’s 8 cores outperform the Xeon’s 12 cores in Cinebench R15 multi-core, indicating that core count alone is not decisive. The Ryzen is the better choice for most users, including gamers, content creators, and mobile professionals. The Xeon is only appropriate for legacy server environments that require ECC memory and quad-channel support, where its performance deficits are acceptable trade-offs for reliability and memory bandwidth.