AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 and the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 represent two distinct approaches to high-core-count computing from their respective eras. The Xeon is a quad-core server part built on Skylake, while the Ryzen is an octa-core desktop processor using the first-generation Zen architecture. The recorded data shows a clear split in benchmark results, with the Ryzen 7 1700 winning both head-to-head tests, but the underlying specifications reveal why these two chips target different workloads and use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes two direct comparisons between these processors, both from Cinebench R15. In the multicore test, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 scores 1414 points, exactly double the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5's 707 points. This translates to a 50% advantage for the AMD part, a massive gap that reflects the fundamental difference in core counts: the Ryzen offers 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon provides 4 cores and 8 threads. For heavily threaded workloads such as video rendering, 3D modeling, or any task that scales across multiple cores, the Ryzen's lead is decisive.

The single-core test is closer but still favors AMD. The Ryzen 7 1700 scores 147 points, while the Xeon E3-1240 v5 scores 99 points, giving the AMD chip a 32.7% lead. This is notable because Intel's Skylake architecture was widely considered to have superior per-core performance at the time. However, the recorded data indicates that the Zen-based Ryzen, despite its lower base clock of 3.00 GHz compared to the Xeon's 3.50 GHz, delivers higher single-thread performance in this specific test. The Ryzen's boost clock of 3.70 GHz versus the Xeon's 3.90 GHz suggests the AMD part achieves its win through architectural efficiency rather than raw frequency.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the two processors are nearly identical. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 has an average benchmark score of 2030, while the Ryzen 7 1700 sits at 2015, a difference of less than 1%. Both occupy the 45th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The nearest rivals for each chip confirm this parity: the Xeon's closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-5775R with a score of 2031 (a 0.1% difference), while the Ryzen's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B at 2012 (a 0.2% difference). This suggests that despite the Ryzen's dominance in the Cinebench R15 tests, the overall performance picture is more nuanced, with each processor trading blows across different workloads.

Architecture Differences

The most obvious distinction is the core count. The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 uses 4 cores with 8 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 doubles that to 8 cores and 16 threads. This directly explains the multicore benchmark gap. The Xeon is built on Intel's Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-DT codename, using a 14 nm process node manufactured by Intel itself. The Ryzen 7 1700 uses AMD's Zen architecture, also on a 14 nm node, but fabricated by GlobalFoundries.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ substantially. The Xeon packs 1,750 million transistors into a 122 mm² die, while the Ryzen 7 1700 contains 4,800 million transistors spread across a 213 mm² die. The Ryzen's larger die and higher transistor count reflect its more complex design with double the cores and a larger cache hierarchy. The Xeon's cache consists of 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3, meaning it has larger per-core caches and double the total L3 capacity.

Memory support also differs. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The Ryzen 7 1700 supports only DDR4, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. Both processors support ECC memory, which is unusual for a desktop part like the Ryzen and aligns with the Xeon's server/workstation positioning. The Xeon is explicitly marked as a Server/Workstation part, while the Ryzen targets the desktop market.

Other differences include the socket. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151, while the Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4. The Xeon's production status is listed as end-of-life, while the Ryzen remains active. The Ryzen 7 1700 has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, whereas the Xeon E3-1240 v5 is locked. Both processors have no integrated graphics, and both provide PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Where Each One Wins

The data clearly shows the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 wins in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. The multicore advantage of 50% makes it the obvious choice for tasks that can utilize all available threads. Video encoding, 3D rendering, scientific simulations, compiling code, or any parallel workload will see a substantial performance boost on the Ryzen. The 16 MB of L3 cache and 512 KB of L2 per core provide ample storage for working sets in such applications, and the higher memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s helps feed the additional cores.

The Ryzen also wins in single-core performance according to the Cinebench R15 results, which is more surprising given the Xeon's higher base and boost clocks. This means the Ryzen is not just a multicore specialist; it also handles everyday tasks like web browsing, office applications, and light gaming with equal or better responsiveness. For a general-purpose desktop processor, the Ryzen 7 1700 appears to have no weaknesses in the tested metrics.

However, the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 is not without merit, even though it loses both head-to-head tests. Its lower core count is compensated by a higher base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 3.90 GHz, which could benefit lightly threaded tasks that are not covered in the head-to-head results. The Xeon's support for DDR3 memory is a practical advantage for systems with existing DDR3 modules, and its lower TDP of 80 watts versus the Ryzen's 65 watts is actually higher, so the Ryzen consumes less power. The Xeon's server/workstation heritage means it is built for reliability and validation in enterprise environments, which the benchmark scores alone do not capture.

The average benchmark score of 2030 for the Xeon versus 2015 for the Ryzen indicates that in other tests not shown in the head-to-head section, the Xeon may outperform the Ryzen. The nearest rivals for the Xeon include the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 and the Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5, both with scores of 2029, suggesting the Xeon is competitive with other server parts. For the Ryzen, its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-8300H and Intel Xeon D-1712TR, which are mobile and embedded parts respectively, indicating the Ryzen's performance profile is similar to a range of other products.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the difference in multicore performance between the two?

A: In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ryzen 7 1700 scores 1414 points versus the Xeon's 707 points, giving the AMD part a 50% advantage.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 boosts to 3.70 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 and the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Ryzen 7 1700 offers 42.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Xeon E3-1240 v5 provides 34.1 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 has 16 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is the stronger processor for raw performance. Its 50% lead in multicore Cinebench R15 makes it the clear choice for any workload that scales across cores, and its 32.7% lead in single-core performance means it also handles lighter tasks with ease. The Ryzen's larger cache, higher memory bandwidth, and lower TDP of 65 watts further reinforce its appeal. With an unlocked multiplier, it also offers overclocking flexibility that the Xeon lacks.

The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5, however, should not be dismissed. Its higher clocks and server-grade pedigree make it suitable for specific enterprise scenarios where validated stability is paramount. The support for DDR3 memory could be a deciding factor for users upgrading from older platforms with existing DDR3 modules. The near-identical average benchmark scores between the two processors suggest that outside the Cinebench tests, the Xeon can hold its own in certain applications.

For a new desktop build or a workload that emphasizes parallel processing, the Ryzen 7 1700 is the data-backed winner. For a legacy server upgrade path or a system that relies on DDR3 memory, the Xeon E3-1240 v5 remains a viable option despite its end-of-life status. The recorded data favors the Ryzen in head-to-head comparisons, but the Xeon's strengths are in areas not fully captured by those specific tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 | AMD Ryzen 7 1700 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.90 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 80 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Zen |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,750 million | 4,800 million |

| Die Size | 122 mm² | 213 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

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

| Release Date | 2015-10-18 | 2017-03-01 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | SR2LD | YD1700BBAEBOX |