AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 vs Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 operates at 2.10 GHz. The Intel part also boosts higher, reaching 3.90 GHz compared to 3.70 GHz on the AMD chip.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 support ECC memory. They also both use dual-channel memory buses, though the Intel part uses DDR3 while the AMD part uses DDR4.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between these two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 contains 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, while the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 has 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The AMD chip is built on a 12 nm process from GlobalFoundries, whereas the Intel chip uses a 22 nm process from Intel's own foundry.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, which is double the 4 MB of shared L3 cache found on the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514. However, the AMD chip has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches: 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core versus 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core on the Intel.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1756, placing it at the 41st percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 scores 1730 on average, also at the 41st percentile. The Intel part sits 1.5% above its rival in average performance.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 is end-of-life, having been released in May 2014 with a launch MSRP of $273. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 is still active in production, with a release date of September 2022 and no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different architectural generations and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 is built on the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-WS codename, using a 22 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It features 1,400 million transistors packed into a 160 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514, in contrast, uses the Zen+ architecture under the Picasso codename, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 12 nm process. This newer process allows AMD to integrate 4,940 million transistors across a 210 mm² die, a substantial increase in transistor density and total count.

The memory subsystems differ significantly. The Intel part supports DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, while the AMD part supports DDR4 with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. This gives the AMD chip a 67% advantage in theoretical memory bandwidth, which could matter in memory-intensive workloads despite the Intel part's higher clock speeds.

Cache hierarchies are organized differently as well. The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 allocates 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 provides 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the AMD chip may help with latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks, while the larger L3 pool on the Intel chip benefits shared data access patterns across all four cores.

Both processors present identical PCIe configurations: Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Both are also locked, with no unlocked multiplier. The AMD chip includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, while the Intel Xeon has no integrated graphics at all, a notable difference for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU.

The market positioning of the two is telling: the Intel Xeon targets server and workstation segments, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 is classified as a desktop part, though its embedded pedigree suggests use in compact, low-power systems. The TDP figures highlight this divergence starkly: the Intel part consumes 80 watts, while the AMD part sips just 15 watts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data from Cinebench testing shows a consistent, though narrow, victory for the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 across all six benchmark tests. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Intel chip scores 86 against 84 for the AMD part, a 2.4% advantage. This is the only test where the delta exceeds 2%; all other comparisons fall between 1.4% and 1.5%.

In multi-core tests, the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 scores 612 in Cinebench R15 versus 603 for the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514, a 1.5% edge. The same 1.5% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Intel part scores 2550 against 2513. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the Intel chip at 6072 versus 5984, again a 1.5% margin.

Single-core results follow a similar pattern. Cinebench R20 single-core gives the Intel part 359 points versus 354 for AMD, a 1.4% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 857 against 844, a 1.5% difference. The consistency of these margins is striking: regardless of the workload generation or whether testing single or multi-threaded performance, the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 maintains a narrow but reproducible advantage.

The benchmark data records 6 wins for the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 and 0 wins for the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 in direct head-to-head comparison. However, the magnitude of these wins is small enough that real-world application performance would likely be indistinguishable in most tasks. The AMD chip's lower clock speeds are compensated by its architectural efficiency and higher memory bandwidth, keeping the gap remarkably tight.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 uses the Intel Socket 1150, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 uses AMD Socket FP5. Base clocks are 3.50 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and boost clocks are 3.90 GHz versus 3.70 GHz, respectively.

The TDP differential is the most dramatic specification gap: 80 watts for the Intel part versus 15 watts for the AMD part. This 65-watt difference makes the AMD chip suitable for passively cooled or fanless embedded systems, while the Intel chip requires more substantial thermal solutions.

Process technology and manufacturing details diverge completely: 22 nm Intel fabrication versus 12 nm GlobalFoundries, 1,400 million versus 4,940 million transistors, and 160 mm² versus 210 mm² die sizes. Memory support differs by generation: DDR3 for Intel, DDR4 for AMD, with bandwidth ratings of 25.6 GB/s and 42.7 GB/s respectively. L3 cache sizes are 8 MB versus 4 MB, though per-core L1 and L2 caches are larger on the AMD part.

Integrated graphics are present only on the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514, which includes Radeon Vega 8. The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output. Market segments also differ: the Intel part targets server and workstation use, while the AMD part is classified for desktop use.

Production status and release dates are far apart: the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 was released in May 2014 and is now end-of-life, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 was released in September 2022 and remains active. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $273, while the AMD part has no launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The benchmark data gives a clear, if narrow, victory to the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 1.4% to 2.4%. Its average benchmark score of 1756 also edges out the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514's 1730, a 1.5% difference. Both processors sit at the 41st percentile of all CPUs, indicating they occupy a similar performance tier overall.

The Intel chip achieves this performance through higher clock speeds: a 3.50 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost, compared to 2.10 GHz and 3.70 GHz on the AMD part. The AMD chip counters with a more modern 12 nm process, larger transistor count, higher memory bandwidth, and integrated graphics, yet still trails in raw CPU throughput.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in Cinebench-style workloads, the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 is the data-backed choice. Its consistent lead across all benchmark generations suggests that its architectural advantages, likely the higher clocks and larger L3 cache, outweigh the AMD chip's newer process and memory bandwidth.

However, the production status is a critical factor. The Intel part is end-of-life, meaning availability may be limited to used or refurbished markets. The AMD part is active, ensuring ongoing supply and platform support. For new system designs, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 offers comparable performance within 1.5% while consuming 81% less power and including integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 wins in every measured performance category from the head-to-head data. Its largest victory is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the 2.4% margin suggests an advantage in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive workloads. The consistent 1.5% leads in multi-core tests across R15, R20, and R23 indicate that the Intel part scales its advantage evenly across thread counts, likely due to its 3.90 GHz boost clock sustaining higher sustained frequency across all cores.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 wins in efficiency and platform integration, though these are not directly benchmarked. Its 15 watt TDP versus 80 watts for the Intel part makes it dramatically more power-efficient, which matters for embedded applications, compact systems, or deployments where thermal management is constrained. The integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU, simplifying system design and reducing overall power draw further.

The AMD chip also wins on memory bandwidth, with 42.7 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s, and on per-core cache capacity, with larger L1 and L2 allocations. These advantages do not translate into Cinebench victories in the recorded data, but they could benefit other workload types not represented in these benchmarks, such as memory-streaming tasks or certain embedded compute patterns.

The production status favors AMD as well: an active part with ongoing availability versus an end-of-life part that is no longer manufactured. For long-lifecycle embedded deployments, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 offers a more sustainable supply chain, while the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 remains a viable option for existing socket 1150 platforms or cost-sensitive upgrades where the performance edge, though small, is measurable.