AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS vs Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 Comparison

The head-to-head benchmark data splits the two processors evenly, with each claiming two victories, but the nature of those wins reveals fundamentally different performance profiles. In Cinebench R15, the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS dominates: it scores 2083 in multi-core versus the Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3's 1493, a 28.3% deficit for the Intel part. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern, with the AMD chip posting 243 against Intel's 210, a 13.6% gap. These are decisive margins in an older benchmark generation, indicating the Ryzen's architectural efficiency translates directly into raw throughput in that workload.

The newer Cinebench R23 results flip the script entirely. The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 wins multi-core with 14815 points against the Ryzen 9 5980HS's 12629, a 17.3% advantage. Even more striking is the single-core R23 score: Intel leads 2091 to 1529, a 36.8% margin. This reversal suggests that R23's workload scaling favors the Intel part's higher core count and larger shared cache, while the older R15 test rewards the Ryzen's higher clock speeds and newer core design. The data does not show a consistent overall winner; it shows two chips optimized for different benchmark generations and, by extension, different application types.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic delta appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 outperforms the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS by 36.8%. That is a massive lead for a processor with a 2.90 GHz boost clock against a 4.80 GHz boost clock. The Intel part's 2091 score versus 1529 indicates that the Haswell architecture's per-thread performance, when paired with its 45 MB shared L3 cache, remains highly competitive in modern single-threaded workloads. This is not a marginal victory; it is a categorical one.

Conversely, the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 28.3%, scoring 2083 against Intel's 1493. This is equally decisive. The Ryzen's 8 cores and 16 threads, running at a 3.00 GHz base clock, generate 590 more points than the Xeon's 18 cores and 36 threads. The per-core efficiency of Zen 3 is evident here; the AMD chip produces more total work despite having fewer than half the cores. The R15 single-core test shows a smaller but still clear AMD advantage: 243 versus 210, a 13.6% lead.

The Cinebench R23 multi-core result is the only Intel win that aligns with its core-count advantage. The Xeon scores 14815, which is 2186 points higher than the Ryzen's 12629, a 17.3% margin. This shows the 18-core configuration can still flex its muscle when a benchmark scales well with parallel threads. The average benchmark scores reflect these mixed results: the Intel part averages 4285 across all tested workloads, while the AMD part averages 4121. The Intel chip sits at the 58th percentile among all CPUs, the AMD at the 57th, a negligible 1-point percentile difference.

Architecture Differences

The foundational difference lies in the manufacturing process and core design. The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 uses a 22 nm process built by Intel, with a die size of 662 mm². The AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, packing 10,700 million transistors into a 180 mm² die. This is a generational leap in density and efficiency; the AMD chip delivers comparable or better performance in many tests while consuming a fraction of the silicon area and power.

The core counts diverge sharply: Intel offers 18 cores and 36 threads, while AMD provides 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part's L3 cache is 45 MB shared, versus 16 MB shared on the AMD chip. Per-core L2 cache also differs: 256 KB per core on Intel, 512 KB per core on AMD. Both use DDR4 memory with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, but the Intel part supports quad-channel memory while the AMD uses dual-channel. The memory bandwidth figure is identical, but the channel configurations suggest different memory architectures.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the Intel Xeon; the Ryzen 9 5980HS does not support it. PCIe lanes also differ: the Intel part provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The AMD chip includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon is a server/workstation part on Socket 2011-3, while the AMD is a mobile part on Socket FP6. The TDP figures are stark: 135 watts for Intel, 35 watts for AMD, a 100-watt gap that underscores the mobile versus server design philosophies.

The release dates are six years apart: the Intel Xeon launched on 2015-05-31, the AMD Ryzen on 2021-01-11. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $7007, while the AMD has no listed launch MSRP. Production status differs as well: Intel is end-of-life, AMD is active. The AMD part belongs to the 5000 series, codename Cezanne, with Zen 3 architecture, while the Intel is Haswell-EP architecture under the Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP) generation.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS wins in legacy benchmark workloads, specifically Cinebench R15. Both the multi-core and single-core R15 tests show the Ryzen ahead by 28.3% and 13.6% respectively. This points to applications that rely on high clock speeds and efficient instruction execution per cycle, where the Zen 3 architecture's 4.80 GHz boost clock provides a tangible edge. The 35-watt TDP also makes it suitable for mobile deployments where power constraints are paramount, though the benchmark data itself does not directly measure power consumption.

The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 wins in modern Cinebench R23 tests. The multi-core victory by 17.3% and the single-core victory by 36.8% indicate that newer benchmark versions reward the Intel part's larger cache hierarchy and 18-core parallel scaling. For server or workstation workloads that can utilize 36 threads, the Xeon's 45 MB L3 cache reduces memory latency and improves throughput in cache-sensitive tasks. The single-core R23 result, despite the lower boost clock, suggests that the benchmark's instruction mix plays to the Haswell design's strengths.

The average benchmark scores place the two chips nearly equal: Intel at 4285, AMD at 4121. The nearest rivals for the Intel part include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G at 4296 (0.3% higher), the Intel Xeon W-2140B at 4272 (0.3% lower), and the Intel Core i7-7820X at 4321 (0.8% higher). For the AMD part, the nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700X at 4114 (0.2% lower), the Intel Core i5-12500TE at 4083 (0.9% lower), and the Intel Core i9-9900 at 4163 (1% higher). These tight clusters show both chips are mid-pack performers relative to the broader CPU landscape.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 has 18 cores and 36 threads. The AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 scores 14815, which is 17.3% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS's 12629.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS support ECC memory?

A: No, the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS does not support ECC memory. The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 does support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS includes Radeon Vega 8 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 averages 4285, and the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS averages 4121. The Intel part is 0.2% above the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G, while the AMD part is 0.2% above the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700X in their respective rival clusters.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 has a TDP of 135 watts. The AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS has a TDP of 35 watts.

The Verdict

The data supports a split decision based on workload vintage. For applications that resemble Cinebench R15, such as older rendering pipelines or lightly threaded legacy software, the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS is the clear choice. Its 28.3% multi-core and 13.6% single-core leads in that benchmark demonstrate superior per-thread performance and clock speed utilization. The 35-watt TDP also makes it the only viable option for power-constrained mobile systems.

For modern workloads that mirror Cinebench R23, the Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 takes the lead. The 17.3% multi-core advantage and the 36.8% single-core advantage show that the 18-core design with 45 MB L3 cache can outperform the newer AMD chip in current benchmark conditions. The server/workstation market segment, quad-channel memory support, and ECC memory capability further position the Intel part for reliability-focused deployments. The $7007 launch MSRP indicates a premium positioning, though the part is now end-of-life.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with a 164-point difference favoring Intel, which translates to a 1-point percentile gap. Neither chip dominates the other across the board. The Ryzen 9 5980HS wins the older benchmark generation decisively; the Xeon E5-4669 v3 wins the newer one even more decisively in single-core terms. Users should choose based on the specific benchmark generation that matches their target applications, with the AMD part offering active production status and the Intel part offering a larger core pool and cache.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 | AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 18 | 8 |

| Threads | 36 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.90 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 135 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 | AMD Socket FP6 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Zen 3 |

| Codename | Haswell-EP | Cezanne |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 662 mm² | 180 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 10,700 million |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 45 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon Vega 8 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2015-05-31 | 2021-01-11 |

| Launch MSRP | $7007 | Not listed |

| Part Number | SR22M QH9B | 100-000000474 |