AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS vs Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 edges out the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS by a narrow margin. The Xeon scores 3,959 on average, while the Ryzen 9 5900HS scores 3,924. That places the Xeon at the 57th percentile of all CPUs, with the Ryzen 9 5900HS just behind at the 56th percentile.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 wins this test. It scores 13,690 versus the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS’s 12,745.5, giving Intel a 7.4% advantage in this workload.

Q: Which processor has the better single-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 is significantly ahead here. Its single-core score of 1,932 beats the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS’s 1,475.5 by a substantial 30.9% margin.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS win any benchmark against the Xeon?

A: Yes. The Ryzen 9 5900HS wins both Cinebench R15 tests. In multi-core, it scores 2,041 versus the Xeon’s 1,379, a 32.4% advantage. In single-core, it scores 236.5 versus 194, an 18% lead.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS has 8 cores and 16 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the Ryzen 9 5900HS wins Cinebench R15 multi-core.

Q: Which processor is currently in production?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS is marked as active in production. The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 is end-of-life, meaning it is no longer manufactured.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 and AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS represent fundamentally different design philosophies and generations. The Xeon is built on Intel’s 22 nm process with a Haswell-EP architecture, manufactured by Intel itself. It packs 2,600 million transistors into a 356 mm² die. In contrast, the Ryzen 9 5900HS uses AMD’s Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm process, fabricated by TSMC. This newer process allows AMD to fit 10,700 million transistors into a much smaller 180 mm² die.

The core counts differ substantially. The Xeon offers 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Ryzen 9 5900HS provides 8 cores and 16 threads. Cache layouts also diverge: both share 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the Xeon has 256 KB of L2 per core versus the Ryzen’s 512 KB per core. For L3 cache, the Xeon boasts 30 MB shared, while the Ryzen has 16 MB shared.

Memory support shows a generational split. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus. The Ryzen 9 5900HS supports only DDR4 with a dual-channel bus. Interestingly, both have the same theoretical memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Ryzen does not. For PCIe, the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, while the Ryzen offers Gen 3 without a lane count specified.

The integrated graphics situation also differs. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Ryzen 9 5900HS includes Radeon Vega 8. The Xeon targets the server/workstation market with a 120 W TDP, whereas the Ryzen is a mobile part with a 35 W TDP. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, and the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP6.

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a split picture, and the choice depends heavily on workload. The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 wins in Cinebench R23, both multi-core and single-core. Its 13,690 multi-core score and 1,932 single-core score are 7.4% and 30.9% ahead of the Ryzen 9 5900HS, respectively. For users running modern Cinebench R23 workloads, the Xeon is clearly the stronger performer.

However, the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS dominates Cinebench R15. It leads by 32.4% in multi-core with a score of 2,041 versus 1,379, and by 18% in single-core with 236.5 versus 194. This is a dramatic reversal, suggesting the Ryzen’s architecture is more efficient in that specific benchmark generation.

The overall averages are nearly tied: 3,959 for the Xeon and 3,924 for the Ryzen, a difference of less than 1%. The percentile rankings confirm this, with the Xeon at the 57th percentile and the Ryzen at the 56th. This is not a case of one chip being categorically superior. The Xeon is better for Cinebench R23 workloads, while the Ryzen is better for Cinebench R15. Given that the Xeon is end-of-life and the Ryzen is active, buyers looking for a current platform with similar overall performance would favor the Ryzen 9 5900HS.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.30 GHz for the Xeon and 3.00 GHz for the Ryzen, with boost clocks of 3.10 GHz and 4.60 GHz, respectively. The TDP difference is stark: 120 W for the Xeon versus 35 W for the Ryzen.

Process technology separates them by two generations: the Xeon uses a 22 nm node from Intel, while the Ryzen uses a 7 nm node from TSMC. Transistor counts are 2,600 million versus 10,700 million, and die sizes are 356 mm² versus 180 mm². L2 cache differs at 256 KB per core for the Xeon and 512 KB per core for the Ryzen. L3 cache is 30 MB shared for the Xeon and 16 MB shared for the Ryzen.

Memory support sees the Xeon accepting both DDR3 and DDR4 with a quad-channel bus, while the Ryzen only accepts DDR4 with a dual-channel bus. Both achieve 68.3 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. PCIe is Gen 3 for both, but the Xeon specifies 40 lanes. The Ryzen includes Radeon Vega 8 integrated graphics; the Xeon has none. The Xeon is a server/workstation part that is end-of-life, while the Ryzen is an active mobile part. The Xeon’s part number is SR1XU, and the Ryzen’s is 100-000000300.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a 2-2 split, with each processor winning two tests. The largest margin belongs to the AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS in Cinebench R15 multi-core. Its score of 2,041 crushes the Xeon’s 1,379, a 32.4% difference. This is notable because the Ryzen has only 8 cores versus the Xeon’s 12, yet it wins decisively. The R15 single-core test also goes to the Ryzen, with 236.5 versus 194, an 18% lead.

The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 takes the Cinebench R23 tests. In multi-core, the Xeon scores 13,690 against the Ryzen’s 12,745.5, a 7.4% win. The single-core R23 result is the Xeon’s largest victory: 1,932 versus 1,475.5, a massive 30.9% margin. This is surprising given the Ryzen’s much higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz versus the Xeon’s 3.10 GHz.

The overall average benchmark scores are almost identical. The Xeon’s 3,959 average is just 0.9% higher than the Ryzen’s 3,924. The nearest rival lists confirm the parity: the Xeon’s closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 3 7330U at 3,958 (0% delta), while the Ryzen 9 5900HS’s closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 4600GE at 3,906 (0.5% delta). Notably, each processor appears in the other’s nearest rival list, with deltas of -0.9% in both directions.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 wins in modern Cinebench R23 workloads. Its multi-core score of 13,690 is 7.4% ahead of the Ryzen, and its single-core score of 1,932 is 30.9% ahead. This makes the Xeon the better choice for applications that scale with Cinebench R23-style rendering and computation. Its 12 cores and 24 threads provide a foundation for heavily threaded tasks, and its quad-channel memory support with ECC capability suits server and workstation environments.

The AMD Ryzen 9 5900HS wins decisively in Cinebench R15. Its multi-core score of 2,041 is 32.4% ahead, and its single-core score of 236.5 is 18% ahead. This indicates that the Ryzen’s Zen 3 architecture is highly efficient in that benchmark generation. With a 35 W TDP versus the Xeon’s 120 W, the Ryzen achieves these wins at a fraction of the power draw, making it the clear choice for mobile and power-constrained systems. Its integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics provide a display output capability that the Xeon lacks entirely.

For users focused on Cinebench R23 performance, the Xeon is the winner. For users running Cinebench R15 workloads or needing an active, low-power mobile processor, the Ryzen 9 5900HS is superior. The overall scores are nearly tied, so the deciding factor is which benchmark generation matters more for the intended use case. The Xeon’s end-of-life status and the Ryzen’s active production status also weigh in favor of the AMD part for new system designs.