AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B vs Intel Xeon E5645 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark landscape splits this comparison cleanly along workload type. The Intel Xeon E5645 takes the multi-threaded crown in the modern Cinebench R23 test, posting 4,187 points against the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B's 3,160, a 32.5% advantage. That result reflects the Xeon's six cores and twelve threads, which give it more parallel execution resources than the Ryzen's four cores and eight threads. For heavily threaded rendering tasks, the older Intel part remains the stronger choice despite its age.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B, however, dominates every single-core test and the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test. Its single-core scores are decisively higher: 128 versus 59 in R15 (a 53.9% margin) and 841 versus 591 in R23 (a 29.7% margin). The Ryzen also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core with 654 points versus 421, a 35.6% lead. This pattern suggests the Ryzen's newer Zen architecture extracts far more work per clock, particularly when the workload does not scale perfectly across many threads. In lightly threaded applications, daily desktop use, or tasks that depend on a single fast core, the Ryzen Embedded part is the clear winner.

The overall win tally favors the AMD part: three benchmark wins out of four head-to-head comparisons. Yet the one Intel win is in the most stressful, modern multi-core test available in the database, which carries outsized weight for content creation. The database also shows both processors sit at the 34th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same tier of overall performance despite their very different strengths.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from opposite ends of the hardware spectrum. The Intel Xeon E5645 is a Westmere-EP part built on a 32 nm process by Intel, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B uses the Zen architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. That process gap alone explains much of the efficiency and clock speed difference: the Ryzen boosts to 3.60 GHz, far above the Xeon's 2.67 GHz boost ceiling. The Xeon's base clock of 2.40 GHz and boost of 2.67 GHz are modest even by 2010 standards, while the Ryzen's 2.00 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost show a much wider dynamic range.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Xeon offers 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen doubles per-core L1 to 128 KB and L2 to 512 KB, but its shared L3 is only 2 MB. This means the Intel part has six times more L3 cache, which can benefit workloads with large working sets, while the AMD part's larger per-core caches help with lower-latency access to frequently used data. Transistor counts tell a strange story: the Ryzen lists 4,950 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, while the Xeon lists 1,170 million on a 239 mm² die. The Ryzen packs far more logic into a smaller area, a signal of the 14 nm process's density advantage.

Memory support also diverges: the Xeon uses DDR3 with a triple-channel memory bus and supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and lacks ECC support. The Xeon's market segment is Server/Workstation, and it carries an Intel Socket 1366 interface. The Ryzen is classified as Desktop, uses AMD Socket FP5, and includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely. The Xeon is end-of-life, released in March 2010, while the Ryzen remains active, released in February 2018.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test delivers the most surprising result. Despite having fewer cores and threads, the Ryzen Embedded V1605B scores 654 against the Xeon's 421, a 35.6% margin in its favor. This contradicts the assumption that more cores always win. The Ryzen's newer architecture, higher boost clock, and better memory subsystem overcome the Xeon's two-core and four-thread advantage. In this older test, which is less demanding on memory bandwidth and thread scaling, the Ryzen simply executes instructions faster.

The single-core R15 result is even more lopsided. The Ryzen scores 128, more than double the Xeon's 59, a 53.9% gap. A single Ryzen Zen core at 3.60 GHz utterly outclasses a single Westmere core at 2.67 GHz. This is the clearest illustration of architectural generational improvement: roughly eight years of IPC gains show up as a doubling of single-thread performance.

Moving to Cinebench R23, the picture inverts for multi-core. The Xeon E5645 takes the lead with 4,187 points versus 3,160, a 32.5% advantage. The R23 multi-core test appears to scale better with thread count, allowing the Xeon's twelve threads to flex their muscle. The Ryzen's eight threads, despite their efficiency, cannot compensate for having one-third fewer cores and threads. This suggests that modern rendering workloads, which are heavily optimized for multi-threading, reward the Xeon's raw core count.

In R23 single-core, the Ryzen again wins decisively: 841 versus 591, a 29.7% margin. The trend is consistent: the AMD part wins every single-core test by a wide margin, wins the older multi-core test, and loses only the modern multi-core test. The data implies that the Ryzen is the better all-rounder for typical use, while the Xeon is specifically strong in heavily threaded modern workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5645 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon offers 50% more cores and 50% more threads.

Q: How much faster is the Ryzen in single-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Ryzen Embedded V1605B scores 841 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Xeon E5645 scores 591. The Ryzen leads by 29.7%.

Q: Does the Xeon win any benchmark at all?

A: Yes. The Xeon E5645 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 4,187 points versus the Ryzen's 3,160, a 32.5% advantage.

Q: What memory types do these two processors support?

A: The Xeon E5645 supports DDR3 memory with a triple-channel bus and ECC memory. The Ryzen Embedded V1605B supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Xeon E5645 has a TDP of 80 watts. The Ryzen Embedded V1605B has a TDP of 15 watts. The Ryzen consumes 65 fewer watts, a substantial difference for embedded or compact systems.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Ryzen Embedded V1605B includes Radeon Vega 8 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon E5645 has no integrated graphics at all.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Xeon E5645 uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Ryzen Embedded V1605B uses 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 2.40 GHz and boost clock is 2.67 GHz, compared to the Ryzen's 2.00 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. The Xeon's TDP is 80 watts, the Ryzen's is 15 watts.

The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366 with the Westmere architecture on a 32 nm process from Intel. The Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP5 with the Zen architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. Transistor counts differ dramatically: 1,170 million for the Xeon versus 4,950 million for the Ryzen. Die sizes are comparable, 239 mm² for the Xeon and 210 mm² for the Ryzen.

Cache layouts are distinct: the Xeon has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core with 12 MB shared L3, while the Ryzen has 128 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core with only 2 MB shared L3. Memory support shows the Xeon using DDR3 with triple-channel and ECC, while the Ryzen uses DDR4 with dual-channel and no ECC. The Xeon supports PCIe Gen 2, while the Ryzen's PCIe information is not recorded. The Ryzen includes Radeon Vega 8 integrated graphics; the Xeon has none. The Xeon targets Server/Workstation and is end-of-life, while the Ryzen targets Desktop and remains active. The Xeon was released in March 2010, the Ryzen in February 2018.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different purchasing decisions. For anyone running modern, heavily multi-threaded rendering workloads, the Intel Xeon E5645 offers a decisive 32.5% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Its 6 cores and 12 threads, combined with 12 MB of shared L3 cache, make it a capable choice for parallel number-crunching. The 80 watt TDP is high, but for a dedicated rendering workstation, the extra multi-core throughput justifies the power draw.

For nearly everything else, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1605B is the superior part. It wins three of four head-to-head benchmarks, including both single-core tests by margins of 29.7% and 53.9%. Its 15 watt TDP makes it dramatically more efficient, a critical factor for embedded systems, small desktops, or fanless designs. The integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU in basic display scenarios. The Ryzen's 3.60 GHz boost clock and Zen architecture deliver far better responsiveness in everyday tasks.

The database places both at the 34th percentile overall, indicating similar average performance, but the distribution of scores tells the real story. The Xeon is a specialist in multi-threaded modern workloads. The Ryzen is a generalist that excels in single-thread performance and offers massive power savings. The choice hinges on workload: prioritize the Xeon for heavy parallel rendering, choose the Ryzen for efficient, responsive, and versatile operation. The Ryzen's broader benchmark wins and architectural modernity make it the more balanced recommendation for most users, while the Xeon's single multi-core victory remains its strongest argument.