AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 vs Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 Comparison

The data presents a clear, albeit surprising, head-to-head result. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14, a 4-core, 8-thread part, consistently outperforms the 6-core, 12-thread Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 across every single benchmark test in the comparison. The margin is remarkably consistent, with the AMD processor winning all six head-to-head tests by a margin of roughly 5 percent. This outcome challenges the assumption that a higher core count and higher thermal design power (TDP) automatically translate to superior performance in this comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins every single test in the head-to-head comparison. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the AMD processor scores 1017 against the Intel Xeon's 966, a 5 percent difference. This pattern continues in the single-core R15 test, where the AMD chip scores 143 versus the Intel's 136, a 4.9 percent lead.

The consistency is striking when moving to newer Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R20, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 achieves a multicore score of 4241 compared to the Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4's 4028, and a single-core score of 598 versus 568. Both represent a 5 percent advantage for the AMD part. The Cinebench R23 results follow the exact same pattern: the AMD processor scores 10099 in the multicore test and 1425 in the single-core test, while the Intel Xeon scores 9592 and 1354, respectively. All six head-to-head deltas are precisely 5 percent or 4.9 percent, indicating a very consistent performance gap.

The data shows that the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is not just faster in one specific workload; it is uniformly ahead across the entire Cinebench suite. The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 does have additional benchmark data in the Geekbench tests, where it scores 6060 in multicore and 1122 in single-core. However, without corresponding Geekbench scores for the AMD processor, a direct comparison on that platform is not possible.

When examining the average benchmark scores, the two processors are nearly identical. The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 has an average score of 2978, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 has an average of 2921. This places them in the same performance tier overall, despite the AMD part winning on every Cinebench test. The Intel Xeon's average is boosted by its Geekbench scores, which are not countered by the AMD part. The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 sits at the 52nd percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 sits at the 51st percentile.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the head-to-head data, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 wins in every workload that is measured. This includes both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench tests across three different versions (R15, R20, and R23). For any user running these specific rendering and 3D modeling benchmarks, the AMD processor is the clear choice, delivering a consistent 5 percent performance advantage.

The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4's only area of demonstrated superiority is in the Geekbench tests, where it scores 6060 in multicore and 1122 in single-core. However, this is not a head-to-head comparison, as the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 has no corresponding Geekbench score in the data. The Intel processor's average benchmark score of 2978 is higher than the AMD's 2921, suggesting that its overall performance profile, when including Geekbench, is slightly stronger. This could indicate that the Intel Xeon has an advantage in the specific workloads that Geekbench simulates, but this cannot be confirmed against the AMD part without its score.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14's wins are not narrow or workload-specific; they are broad and consistent. Its 5 percent lead in both single-core and multi-core tests suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency that allows it to outperform a processor with more cores and a much higher TDP. The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4, with its higher core count and 140-watt TDP, does not translate that power budget into a performance lead in the Cinebench suite.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two processors is vast, as they come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 is based on the Broadwell architecture, specifically Broadwell-EP, and is built on Intel's 14 nm process node. It features 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a substantial 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 and supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus, providing 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. It also provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. This is a desktop part that has reached its end-of-life production status.

In contrast, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is a much newer design, based on the Zen 3+ architecture with the codename Rembrandt. It is fabricated on a more advanced 6 nm process node by TSMC. Despite having fewer cores (4 cores and 8 threads), it operates at a lower base clock of 2.30 GHz but a similar boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Its cache is also smaller, with 512 KB of L2 per core and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD processor uses the AMD Socket FP7 and supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, yet it achieves the same theoretical memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s as the Intel part. It provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, which is half the lane count but a newer generation. The AMD processor is still in active production.

The most significant difference lies in the power envelope. The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 has a TDP of 140 watts, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 has a TDP of just 15 watts. This massive disparity confirms the efficiency gains of the newer 6 nm process and the Zen 3+ architecture. The AMD processor delivers superior Cinebench performance while consuming less than 11 percent of the Intel part's thermal budget. The Intel part's strength lies in its larger 15 MB L3 cache and 40 PCIe lanes, which could be beneficial for certain memory-intensive or I/O-heavy workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is faster, scoring 10099 compared to the Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4's 9592, a difference of 5 percent.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 2978, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 averages 2921. The Intel part's score is influenced by its Geekbench results, which are not available for the AMD part.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each CPU?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 has a TDP of 140 watts. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 has a TDP of 15 watts.

Q: Which processor supports DDR5 memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 supports DDR5 memory. The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 supports DDR4 memory.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 is marked as end-of-life. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is marked as active.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear winner for the Cinebench workload suite: the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14. It is consistently 5 percent faster than the Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 in every head-to-head test, from single-core R15 to multi-core R23. This is a remarkable result given that the Intel part has 50 percent more cores and a TDP that is over nine times higher. For any user whose primary workload is represented by Cinebench, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is the superior choice based on performance alone.

However, the Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 is not without its merits. Its higher average benchmark score, driven by its Geekbench results, indicates that it may hold an advantage in workloads that are not covered by the Cinebench suite. The Intel part also offers a larger 15 MB L3 cache and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, which could be crucial for applications that rely on large data sets or extensive I/O expansion. Its launch MSRP was $621, and it has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, which is higher than the AMD part's 3.80 GHz.

The choice between these two processors depends entirely on the user's priorities. If the workload is rendering or general multi-threaded compute as modeled by Cinebench, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V3C14 is the better performer and offers dramatically lower power consumption. If the user requires the additional PCIe lanes, the larger cache, or the specific performance profile indicated by Geekbench, the Intel Xeon E5-1650 v4 may be the more appropriate part, despite its older architecture and much higher power draw. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a workload-specific recommendation. The AMD part wins on efficiency and modern rendering performance, while the Intel part's edge is in its broader feature set and higher overall average score.