AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 and AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 are both 4-core, 8-thread processors, but they target completely different segments. The Xeon is an end-of-life server/workstation part from the Haswell era, while the Ryzen is an active embedded chip built on Zen+. Benchmark results show they are surprisingly close in raw compute performance, but their architectural and platform differences dictate very different use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a remarkably tight race, with the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 taking the win in five of the six Cinebench tests. The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the Ryzen scores 603 against the Xeon’s 595, a 1.3% lead. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore (2513 vs 2482, a 1.2% advantage) and Cinebench R23 multicore (5984 vs 5910, also 1.2% ahead). The single-core results follow the same trend, though the margins are even smaller: the Ryzen leads by 1.1% in R20 single-core (354 vs 350) and by 1.2% in R23 single-core (844 vs 834). The only test the Intel wins is Cinebench R15 single-core, where both chips score exactly 84, giving the Xeon the tiebreak by the database’s convention.

What do these numbers mean in context? The Ryzen’s average benchmark score is 1730, placing it in the 41st percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon’s average is 1709, in the 40th percentile. The Ryzen is effectively 1.2% faster on average, which is within the margin of noise for most real workloads. The Intel Xeon’s nearest rivals are the Xeon E3-1265L v4 (identical 1709 score) and the Core i7-990X (1713, 0.2% faster), showing it sits in a familiar performance band for older quad-core parts. The Ryzen’s rivals include the Core i3-1315UE (1739, 0.5% faster) and the Core i3-10100 (1742, 0.7% faster), indicating it competes with modern low-power and entry-level desktop chips. In short, the performance difference between these two is almost negligible in Cinebench, but the Ryzen does hold a consistent, if small, edge across both multi-core and single-core tests.

Architecture Differences

These processors are separated by nearly a decade of design philosophy. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, built on a 22 nm process at Intel’s foundry. It packs 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die, reflecting the larger, power-hungry server design. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 uses the Zen+ (Picasso) architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It crams 4,940 million transistors into a smaller 210 mm² die, showing the density advantage of a newer process node.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with a large 10 MB shared L3 cache. The Ryzen has 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3. The Xeon’s bigger L3 cache is typical for a server chip, but the Ryzen’s larger per-core L1 and L2 help compensate in single-threaded bursts.

Memory support is another major split. Both support DDR4 and ECC memory, but the Xeon uses a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Ryzen uses dual-channel with 42.7 GB/s. The Xeon also provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, versus 16 on the Ryzen. The Ryzen counters with integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely. The Xeon’s TDP is 140 W, nearly ten times the Ryzen’s 15 W. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP5. The Xeon was released in September 2014 and is end-of-life; the Ryzen launched in September 2022 and remains active.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark wins are almost entirely on the AMD side, but the real-world application split comes down to platform features. The Ryzen Embedded R2514 wins in every Cinebench generation except the R15 single-core tie. For tasks that rely on sustained multi-threaded rendering, the Ryzen’s 1.2% multicore lead in R23 (5984 vs 5910) makes it the better choice, though the margin is tiny. Its higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz against the Xeon’s 3.60 GHz likely explains the single-core wins in R20 and R23.

The Xeon’s wins are not in raw speed but in platform capability. Its quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth and 40 PCIe lanes make it superior for memory-bandwidth-hungry applications or systems needing many expansion cards. The 10 MB L3 cache also helps in workloads with large working sets that fit in cache. For a server or workstation with heavy I/O or multiple GPUs, the Xeon’s platform is more capable, even if its compute scores are slightly lower.

The Ryzen wins decisively on power efficiency. A 15 W TDP against 140 W is a massive difference. In embedded or fanless systems, the Ryzen is the only realistic option. Its integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks, which the Xeon cannot do at all. For compact, low-power systems or edge computing devices, the Ryzen is the clear winner.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 scores 5984, which is 1.2% higher than the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3’s 5910.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 support ECC memory, though the Xeon uses a quad-channel bus and the Ryzen uses dual-channel.

Q: Does either processor have integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 has integrated graphics (Radeon Vega 8). The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 has a 140 W TDP, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 has a 15 W TDP, a difference of 125 W.

Q: Which chip has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 provides 16 lanes.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 is end-of-life, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 is listed as active in production.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 | AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 |

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

| Manufacturer | Intel | AMD |

| Series | None listed | 2000 series |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 140 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 | AMD Socket FP5 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Zen+ |

| Codename | Haswell-EP | Picasso |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 2,600 million | 4,940 million |

| Die Size | 356 mm² | 210 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 10 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 68.3 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

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

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon Vega 8 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

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

| Release Date | 2014-09-07 | 2022-09-29 |

| Part Number | QGZYSR20P | YE2514C4T4MFH, YE2514C4T4MFHA |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split decision. If you prioritize raw compute performance in Cinebench, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 wins five of six tests, including a 1.2% edge in R23 multicore and a 1.2% edge in R23 single-core. Its 41st percentile average score (1730) edges out the Xeon’s 40th percentile (1709). The Ryzen is also the only option with integrated graphics and a 15 W TDP, making it the obvious choice for embedded, compact, or power-constrained builds.

However, the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 is not without merit. Its quad-channel memory bus (68.3 GB/s) and 40 PCIe lanes provide a platform capability that the Ryzen cannot match. For a workstation that needs massive memory bandwidth or many expansion cards, the Xeon’s 140 W TDP is a reasonable trade-off. The Xeon’s 10 MB L3 cache is also more than double the Ryzen’s 4 MB, which can benefit certain server workloads.

In the end, the choice is about platform, not processor speed. For an embedded system or a low-power desktop, the Ryzen is the winner by default. For a legacy server or a workstation requiring high I/O and memory bandwidth, the Xeon remains viable, even as an end-of-life part. The Ryzen’s active status and newer process node make it the more future-proof option, but the Xeon’s platform features are unique in this comparison. Choose the Xeon for its platform, choose the Ryzen for everything else.