AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 vs Intel Xeon W3570 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 and the Intel Xeon W3570 represent two very different eras of processor design, yet their benchmark results place them in a near-identical performance tier. The data shows a consistent, though narrow, advantage for the AMD part across every tested workload, despite the Intel chip possessing double the cores and threads. The Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 0.3% to 0.6%. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD scores 280 against the Intel’s 279, a 0.4% lead. The R20 multicore test shows a similar story: 1169 versus 1165, a 0.3% gap. Single-core results follow the same pattern, with the Ryzen taking R20 single-core at 165 versus 164 (0.6% delta) and R23 single-core at 393 versus 392 (0.3% delta). The largest margin, 0.6%, occurs in R20 single-core, while the multicore tests in R20 and R23 both show a 0.3% difference. These deltas are remarkably small, placing the two processors within statistical noise of each other on any given run, yet the consistency of the AMD win across all five benchmarks indicates a slight architectural efficiency advantage per clock.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has an average benchmark score of 958, while the Intel Xeon W3570 scores 955. The AMD part also holds a higher percentile ranking at 26 versus 25 for the Intel.

Q: How does the core and thread count differ between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon W3570 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has only 2 cores and 4 threads. Despite having half the cores and threads, the AMD part still achieves a higher score in every shared benchmark.

Q: What is the closest rival to each processor?

A: For the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600, its nearest rival is the AMD Opteron 4386, which has an average score of 957, representing a 0.1% delta. For the Intel Xeon W3570, the closest rival is the Intel Celeron N5105, with an average score of 955 and a 0.0% delta.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory technology?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 supports DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, while the Intel Xeon W3570 supports DDR3 in a triple-channel configuration. The AMD part also has a specified memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, whereas the Intel part has no bandwidth figure listed.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 is listed as "Active" in production, while the Intel Xeon W3570 is marked as "End-of-life."

Q: In terms of power, how do the two processors compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has a TDP of 25 watts, whereas the Intel Xeon W3570 has a TDP of 130 watts. This makes the AMD processor significantly more power-efficient, despite delivering comparable or slightly better performance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins every benchmark in this comparison, but the nature of those wins is crucial. It does not dominate; it edges ahead. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it wins by 1 point (280 vs 279). In R20 multicore, the margin is 4 points (1169 vs 1165). The R23 multicore test shows a 8-point gap (2784 vs 2776). Single-core tests show similarly narrow leads: 1 point in R20 (165 vs 164) and 1 point in R23 (393 vs 392). The data suggests that the Ryzen’s modern Zen architecture allows it to extract more work per clock cycle, overcoming the Intel Xeon’s 2x core and thread advantage in these specific workloads. The AMD part also wins on efficiency metrics, with a 25-watt TDP compared to 130 watts for the Xeon. For scenarios where power draw and heat generation are critical constraints, the Ryzen is the clear winner. The Intel Xeon W3570, despite losing every benchmark, still offers a competitive alternative in raw multithreaded scenarios due to its 4-core, 8-thread configuration. Its scores are so close that in real-world applications with different memory patterns or instruction mixes, the Xeon could easily trade blows. However, based on the data provided, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 is the victor in every measured category.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Xeon W3570 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Clock speeds differ, with the AMD part starting at 2.60 GHz base and boosting to 3.10 GHz, while the Intel part starts at 3.20 GHz and boosts to 3.47 GHz. The TDP is dramatically different: 25 watts for the AMD versus 130 watts for the Intel. The socket types are incompatible, with the AMD using AMD Socket FP5 and the Intel using Intel Socket 1366. The AMD part is classified as a "Mobile" market segment part, while the Intel is a "Server/Workstation" part. Production status also differs, with the AMD being "Active" and the Intel being "End-of-life." The memory support differs completely: the AMD uses DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Intel uses DDR3 in a triple-channel configuration with no specified bandwidth. PCIe support also differs, with the AMD offering Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 2 for the Intel. The AMD part has a higher average benchmark score of 958 versus 955 for the Intel, and a higher percentile rank of 26 versus 25. The release dates are over a decade apart, with the Intel launching in 2009 and the AMD in 2020.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two chips is vast. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 is built on the Zen architecture, with a codename of "Zen" and a process node of 14 nm, manufactured by GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,500 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The Intel Xeon W3570, in contrast, uses the Nehalem architecture with the codename "Bloomfield," built on a 45 nm process by Intel, containing 731 million transistors on a significantly larger 263 mm² die. The AMD part’s cache hierarchy is different: it has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a larger 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Both support ECC memory, but the memory type differs (DDR4 for AMD, DDR3 for Intel). The AMD part is from the "1000 series" and uses the "Banded Kestrel" codename for its generation, while the Intel part is simply listed as "Xeon (Bloomfield)." Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has integrated graphics. The transistor count difference is stark, with the AMD using nearly five times as many transistors, reflecting the more modern design. The AMD part is also a 14 nm part versus the 45 nm Intel, which explains the massive TDP difference. The Xeon’s larger 8 MB L3 cache is notable, but it doesn’t translate into a performance win in the tested Cinebench workloads. The data shows that the newer, more efficient Zen architecture is capable of matching a much older, higher-power, and core-heavy design in these specific tests.