AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 vs Intel Xeon X5570 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints an unusually close picture between the Intel Xeon X5570 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600. Across all five recorded Cinebench tests, the Xeon X5570 wins every round, but the margins are remarkably slim. The largest advantage appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Xeon scores 283 against the Ryzen's 280, a delta of just 1.1%. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon posts 1180 versus 1169, a 0.9% lead. Single-core results follow the same pattern: the Xeon edges ahead with 166 in R20 single-core compared to 165, and 396 in R23 single-core against 393. The R23 multi-core test shows 2810 for the Xeon and 2784 for the Ryzen, again a 0.9% difference.

These deltas are within measurement noise for most real-world workloads, yet the data consistently favors the Intel part. The Xeon's 5 wins and the Ryzen's 0 wins in the head-to-head table confirm a clean sweep, but the average benchmark scores tell a broader story. The Xeon averages 967 across all recorded tests, while the Ryzen averages 958. Both processors sit at the 26th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy nearly identical positions in the overall performance distribution. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U at 968 (a 0.1% advantage for the rival), the Intel Celeron N5100 at 966, and the Intel Core i5-2400S at 968. The Ryzen's closest competitors are the AMD Opteron 4386 and Intel Core i7-950, both at 957, and the AMD Athlon X4 870K at 956. In practical terms, these two processors are peer-level performers despite their architectural differences.

Architecture Differences

The underlying designs could hardly be more different. The Intel Xeon X5570 is built on the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Gainestown, using a 45 nm process at Intel's foundry. It integrates 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 uses the Zen architecture, codenamed Banded Kestrel, on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 3,500 million transistors into a 148 mm² die. The transistor count disparity is stark: the Ryzen holds nearly five times as many transistors on a substantially smaller die, reflecting the process node advantage.

Core configuration differs as well. The Xeon offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Ryzen provides 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 2.93 GHz with a boost of 3.33 GHz; the Ryzen runs at 2.60 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost. Despite having half the cores, the Ryzen nearly matches the Xeon in multi-threaded benchmarks, which points to the Zen architecture's superior instructions per clock. Cache hierarchies also diverge: the Xeon has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, plus 8 MB shared L3. The Ryzen offers 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, but only 4 MB shared L3. The smaller L3 on the Ryzen is compensated by larger per-core L2 and a more efficient memory subsystem.

Memory support highlights another generational gap. The Xeon uses DDR3 with a triple-channel memory bus, delivering 32.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen uses DDR4 with dual-channel memory, achieving 38.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Xeon provides Gen 2 lanes, while the Ryzen offers Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The Ryzen is classified as a mobile segment part with a 25 W TDP, whereas the Xeon is a server or workstation chip with a 95 W TDP. The Xeon launched in March 2009 and is end-of-life; the Ryzen launched in February 2020 and remains active.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon X5570 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but the margins are too small to declare a decisive victory in any specific workload. Its largest win, a 1.1% lead in R15 multi-core, suggests that in older multi-threaded rendering tasks, the Xeon's four physical cores provide a slight edge. The R20 and R23 multi-core results, with leads of 0.9% each, indicate that the Xeon maintains this advantage in modern multi-threaded Cinebench loads, likely due to its higher thread count.

The Ryzen's strengths are not reflected in benchmark wins but in efficiency and platform attributes. Its 25 W TDP versus the Xeon's 95 W means dramatically lower power draw and heat output, which matters for embedded or compact systems. The Ryzen also supports DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3, both newer standards than the Xeon's DDR3 and PCIe Gen 2. In single-core tests, the Ryzen comes within 0.6% of the Xeon in R20 and 0.8% in R23, showing that its newer architecture nearly closes the clock speed gap despite a lower boost frequency. For workloads that are lightly threaded and sensitive to memory bandwidth, the Ryzen's higher bandwidth (38.4 GB/s versus 32.0 GB/s) could offset the slight core-count disadvantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon X5570 scores 2810 versus the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600's 2784, a 0.9% lead for the Xeon.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The Xeon wins single-core tests in both R20 (166 versus 165) and R23 (396 versus 393), with margins of 0.6% and 0.8% respectively.

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

A: The Xeon X5570 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Ryzen Embedded R1600 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor supports newer memory technology?

A: The Ryzen Embedded R1600 supports DDR4 with dual-channel memory at 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon X5570 supports DDR3 with triple-channel memory at 32.0 GB/s.

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

A: The Xeon X5570 has a 95 W TDP, while the Ryzen Embedded R1600 has a 25 W TDP, a substantial difference in power consumption.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The Xeon X5570 is end-of-life, released in March 2009. The Ryzen Embedded R1600 is active, released in February 2020.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon X5570 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark, but the margin is so thin that it is practically negligible for most applications. A 0.6% to 1.1% difference across Cinebench tests means users would not perceive a meaningful speed difference in rendering or general computing tasks. The Xeon's advantage stems from its higher core count (4 versus 2) and higher clock speeds (2.93 GHz base, 3.33 GHz boost versus 2.60 GHz base, 3.10 GHz boost).

However, the Ryzen Embedded R1600 wins on efficiency and platform modernity. Its 25 W TDP is a fraction of the Xeon's 95 W, making it far better suited for embedded systems, fanless designs, or power-constrained environments. The Ryzen also brings DDR4 memory support, PCIe Gen 3 connectivity, and a newer architecture with more transistors (3,500 million versus 731 million) on a smaller die (148 mm² versus 263 mm²). For buyers choosing between these two today, the Xeon offers a slight performance edge but comes with older memory and PCIe standards, higher power draw, and end-of-life status. The Ryzen delivers nearly identical benchmark scores with a fraction of the power consumption and a modern platform. The database shows both processors at the 26th percentile overall, confirming their parity in raw compute.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon X5570 | AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.93 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.33 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | AMD Socket FP5 |

| Architecture | Nehalem | Zen |

| Codename | Gainestown | Zen (Banded Kestrel) |

| Process Node | 45 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 731 million | 3,500 million |

| Die Size | 263 mm² | 148 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.0 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

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

| Release Date | 2009-03-29 | 2020-02-24 |

| Launch MSRP | $1386 | Not available |

| Part Number | SLBF3 | YE1600C4T2OFG |