AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 vs Intel Xeon E5640 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a consistent, if narrow, victory for the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 across every tested workload. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the AMD part scores 338 against 332 for the Intel Xeon E5640, a 1.8% advantage. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the R2312 posts 1410 versus 1387, a 1.7% lead. Single-core results follow the same direction: the R2312 scores 199 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 195 for the Xeon, a 2.1% edge, and 474 versus 466 in Cinebench R23 single-core, another 1.7% gap. The largest margin in the entire comparison is that 2.1% single-core result, which suggests the AMD architecture extracts more performance per thread despite having half the core count.

The multi-core story is more nuanced. The Xeon E5640 has 4 cores and 8 threads, double the R2312's 2 cores and 4 threads, yet it still trails in every multi-core test. That is a notable outcome. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the R2312 reaches 3359 against 3303, a 1.7% win. The database records 5 wins for the AMD part and 0 for the Intel part. No test in the head-to-head set goes the other way. The average benchmark score for the R2312 is 1156, while the Xeon averages 1137, a gap that places the AMD part in the 33rd percentile versus all CPUs and the Intel part in the 32nd percentile. For context, the R2312's nearest rivals include the AMD Opteron 4334 at 1155 (0.1% behind) and the Intel Core i3-8145UE at 1154 (0.2% behind), while the Xeon E5640 sits near the Intel Core i5-2550K at 1136 and the Intel Core i5-3570T at 1136, both within 0.1%. These deltas are tiny, indicating both processors operate in a tightly clustered performance band.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 wins every recorded benchmark, but the nature of those wins matters for real-world use. The single-core results (2.1% in R20, 1.7% in R23) show the Zen+ architecture at 2.70 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost delivers better instructions-per-clock than the older Westmere design. For workloads that depend on one or two threads, such as light office tasks, web browsing, or legacy application logic, the R2312 is the faster part. The multi-core wins are smaller in percentage terms (1.8% in R15, 1.7% in R20 and R23) but still decisive given the Xeon's core-count advantage. The R2312's 4 MB shared L3 cache, coupled with the efficiency of the 12 nm process, lets each of its 2 cores do more work per cycle than the Xeon's 4 cores can manage.

The Intel Xeon E5640 does not win any benchmark, yet it has structural advantages that matter in specific scenarios. It offers 4 cores and 8 threads, double the thread count of the R2312, and a larger 12 MB shared L3 cache. The Xeon also supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, while the R2312 uses dual-channel DDR4. In workloads that are heavily memory-bandwidth dependent and can use many threads, the Xeon's wider memory path and higher core count could close the gap or potentially overturn the benchmark results, even though the recorded Cinebench tests do not show it. The Xeon targets the Server/Workstation segment, whereas the R2312 is classified as Desktop, so the Intel part may fit legacy rack systems or multi-socket boards where its socket 1366 platform and 80 W TDP are accepted. The R2312, with a 15 W TDP, is clearly the efficiency winner, consuming a fraction of the power while still edging ahead in every test.

The Verdict

The data points to one straightforward conclusion: the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 is the faster processor in all measured Cinebench scenarios. It wins 5 out of 5 head-to-head tests, with deltas ranging from 1.7% to 2.1%. The average benchmark score of 1156 versus 1137 confirms the pattern. For anyone choosing between these two based purely on performance, the R2312 is the correct pick. Its 15 W TDP versus 80 W for the Xeon also makes it the sensible choice for power-constrained or embedded designs, where thermal and electrical budgets are tight. The Xeon E5640, being end-of-life and released in 2010, offers no performance advantage in the recorded data, and its higher power draw is a practical liability. However, the Xeon does bring 4 cores, 8 threads, and a 12 MB L3 cache, which could be relevant if a software workload scales with thread count and memory capacity rather than per-core speed. The benchmark results do not reflect such a scenario, so the R2312 remains the recommendation for general use. The Xeon only makes sense if the platform requirement demands Socket 1366 or triple-channel DDR3, which are legacy constraints, not performance benefits.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312. It scores 474 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 466 for the Intel Xeon E5640, a 1.7% lead, and 199 versus 195 in Cinebench R20 single-core, a 2.1% lead.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E5640 win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark set, the AMD R2312 wins all 5 tests. The Xeon's best result is a 332 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, which still trails the R2312's 338.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD R2312 has an average benchmark score of 1156, while the Intel Xeon E5640 averages 1137. The R2312 sits in the 33rd percentile versus all CPUs; the Xeon sits in the 32nd percentile.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The AMD R2312 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Xeon E5640 has 4 cores and 8 threads, double the thread count, yet it still loses every recorded benchmark.

Q: Which processor has the lower power draw?

A: The AMD R2312 has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel Xeon E5640 has a TDP of 80 W, more than five times higher.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The AMD R2312 supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon E5640 supports DDR3 with a triple-channel bus; no bandwidth figure is recorded for it.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 uses the Zen+ architecture, codenamed Picasso, built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 4,940 million transistors onto a 210 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E5640 uses the Westmere architecture, codenamed Westmere-EP, on a 32 nm process at Intel, with 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. The node difference is stark: 12 nm versus 32 nm, which explains the dramatic TDP gap of 15 W versus 80 W. The AMD part is newer, released in 2022, while the Intel part shipped in 2010 and is now end-of-life.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The R2312 has 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a 4 MB shared L3. The Xeon E5640 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but a much larger 12 MB shared L3. The Xeon's L3 is triple the size, which historically helped with multi-threaded server workloads that reuse data across cores. The R2312 compensates with a newer memory controller supporting DDR4 at 38.4 GB/s, while the Xeon uses DDR3 over a triple-channel bus. Both support ECC memory, making either viable for reliability-sensitive applications.

The AMD part integrates a Radeon Vega 3 graphics unit; the Intel part has no integrated graphics. The R2312's PCIe is Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon uses Gen 2 without a lane count specified. The AMD part has a locked multiplier, as does the Intel part, so neither offers overclocking. The R2312 uses AMD Socket FP5, the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366. The AMD part is actively produced; the Intel part is end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The table below isolates the fields where the two processors differ. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2312 has a 2.70 GHz base clock and 3.50 GHz boost clock, versus 2.67 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost for the Intel Xeon E5640. The AMD part has 2 cores and 4 threads; the Intel part has 4 cores and 8 threads. TDP is 15 W for AMD and 80 W for Intel. The process node is 12 nm versus 32 nm. Transistor count is 4,940 million versus 1,170 million. Die size is 210 mm² versus 239 mm². L1 cache is 96 KB per core versus 64 KB per core; L2 is 512 KB per core versus 256 KB per core; L3 is 4 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 dual-channel with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth versus DDR3 triple-channel with no recorded bandwidth. PCIe is Gen 3 with 8 lanes versus Gen 2. The AMD part has integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics; the Intel part has none. Market segment is Desktop versus Server/Workstation. Production status is Active versus End-of-life. Release date is 2022-06-20 versus 2010-03-15. Socket is AMD FP5 versus Intel 1366. Part numbers are YE2312C4T2OFH versus SLBVC. The AMD part belongs to the 2000 series with a Picasso codename; the Intel part has no series designation and a Westmere-EP codename.