AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 vs Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent, though narrow, advantage for the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 across every recorded Cinebench test. In all six head-to-head comparisons, the Intel part wins, yet the margins are remarkably tight, ranging from 2.3% to 3.6%. This is not a case of one processor dominating another; rather, it is a pattern of small but uniform leads for the older server chip.

Starting with multi-core performance, the Xeon E5-2637 v3 scores 617 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, against 603 for the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514, a 2.3% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Intel chip posts 2574 versus 2513, another 2.4% lead. The R23 multi-core test tells the same story: 6130 for Intel, 5984 for AMD, a 2.4% gap. These results indicate that despite the AMD part being built on a newer process and featuring a more modern architecture, the Intel chip's higher base clock and larger L3 cache help it maintain a slight edge in fully threaded workloads.

Single-core results follow a similar trajectory. The Xeon scores 87 in Cinebench R15 single-core, while the Ryzen Embedded scores 84, a 3.6% margin. In R20 single-core, the gap narrows to 2.5% (363 versus 354), and in R23 single-core it remains at 2.5% (865 versus 844). The consistency of these deltas across all three Cinebench versions suggests that the performance difference is structural rather than workload-specific. The Intel part's 3.50 GHz base clock, compared to 2.10 GHz for the AMD chip, likely explains much of this single-threaded advantage, since both parts boost to the same 3.70 GHz ceiling.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The Xeon E5-2637 v3 has an average score of 1773, while the Ryzen Embedded R2514 averages 1730. Both processors sit at the 41st percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they are statistically peers in overall performance. The nearest rivals for each chip further contextualize this: the Xeon's closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-4870HQ at 1769 (0.2% behind), while the AMD chip's nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-10100 at 1742 (0.7% ahead). These relationships show that both processors occupy the same performance tier, with the Intel chip holding a slight but measurable edge.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 wins all six recorded benchmark comparisons. There are no workloads in the database where the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 comes out ahead. However, the magnitude of the Intel wins is modest, and the use-case split depends on interpreting what these margins mean in practice.

For single-threaded applications, the Xeon's 3.6% lead in R15 and 2.5% leads in R20 and R23 suggest it is the better choice for lightly threaded tasks such as legacy software, database queries with limited parallelism, or interactive workloads. The 3.50 GHz base clock gives it a head start that the AMD chip cannot overcome even with its higher per-core efficiency from the Zen+ architecture.

For multi-threaded work, the Intel chip again leads, but the margins shrink to between 2.3% and 2.4%. This means that for rendering, compilation, or scientific computing that scales across all eight threads, the Xeon delivers slightly higher throughput. The AMD part, despite its 15 W TDP and smaller 4 MB L3 cache, manages to stay within striking distance, which is notable given its much lower power envelope.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 does have one clear advantage that is not reflected in the Cinebench scores: it includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics. The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 has no integrated graphics at all. For systems that need a display output without a discrete GPU, the AMD chip is the only viable option between the two. This is a functional win, not a performance win, but it matters for embedded and desktop deployments.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 has an average score of 1773, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 averages 1730. The Intel chip is ahead by roughly 2.5%.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 scores 6130, and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 scores 5984. The Intel part leads by 2.4%.

Q: Are both processors at the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 sit at the 41st percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the AMD chip have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 includes Radeon Vega 8 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE at 1766 (0.4% behind). The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514's closest rival is the Intel Core i3-10100 at 1742 (0.7% ahead).

Q: Which chip has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R15?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 scores 87, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 scores 84. The Intel chip leads by 3.6%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 runs at 2.10 GHz. Both boost to the same 3.70 GHz maximum.

The thermal design power (TDP) is a major differentiator: the Intel chip is rated at 135 W, while the AMD chip is rated at just 15 W. This is a ninefold difference in power draw, making the AMD part far more suitable for passively cooled or power-constrained systems.

Memory support also differs. The Intel Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 with a peak bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The AMD Ryzen Embedded supports dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity favors the Intel part: it provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD chip provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only). The sockets are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 2011-3, and AMD uses Socket FP5.

The Intel Xeon has a launch MSRP of $996. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. The Intel chip is end-of-life, while the AMD chip is active in production. The Intel part was released in September 2014, and the AMD part was released in September 2022.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 is built on the Haswell-EP architecture, using a 22 nm process from Intel's own foundry. It contains 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 uses the Zen+ architecture (codename Picasso), fabricated on a 12 nm process by GlobalFoundries, with 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die. The AMD chip packs nearly twice the transistor count into a smaller die, reflecting the newer manufacturing technology.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The Intel chip has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part's 15 MB L3 cache is nearly four times larger than the AMD part's 4 MB, which helps explain its competitive performance despite the older architecture.

Both processors have 4 cores and 8 threads, so the thread count is identical. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part belongs to the Xeon E5 family (Haswell-EP generation), while the AMD part belongs to the Ryzen Embedded 2000 series (Zen+ Picasso generation). The Intel chip is marked for the Server/Workstation segment, while the AMD chip is marked for the Desktop segment.

The Intel part's transistor count of 2,600 million is dwarfed by the AMD part's 4,940 million, but the Intel chip's larger 15 MB L3 cache and higher clock speeds compensate in the benchmark results. The AMD chip includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, a feature entirely absent from the Intel Xeon.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear, if narrow, winner: the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 outperforms the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 in every recorded test. The Intel chip wins all six Cinebench comparisons, with deltas ranging from 2.3% to 3.6%. Its average benchmark score of 1773 exceeds the AMD part's 1730, and both sit at the same 41st percentile.

For users prioritizing raw CPU throughput in either single-threaded or multi-threaded workloads, the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 is the stronger choice. Its 3.50 GHz base clock, 15 MB L3 cache, quad-channel memory with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes make it well suited for server and workstation tasks where maximum compute per socket is the goal. The 135 W TDP is a cost that must be accepted for this performance.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514, however, is the better pick for entirely different reasons. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Intel chip's power draw, making it suitable for embedded systems, fanless designs, or applications where thermal and power budgets are tight. It includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in display-capable systems. Its dual-channel memory and 16 PCIe lanes are sufficient for many embedded workloads.

The production status differs: the Intel Xeon is end-of-life, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded is active. For new designs, the AMD chip offers a current, supported platform. For legacy upgrades or systems already on Socket 2011-3, the Intel part remains a viable option.

In short, the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 wins on raw performance across all measured benchmarks, but the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2514 wins on power efficiency, integrated graphics, and platform currency. The choice depends on whether the workload demands maximum compute or minimal power consumption with graphics capability. The data shows that both processors occupy the same performance percentile, so the decision rests on system-level requirements rather than CPU speed alone.