AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear picture when the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 and AMD Ryzen 7 1700 are placed side by side. In the two head-to-head tests available, the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 wins both outright. The most dramatic gap appears in the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, where the AMD part scores 1414 against the Intel’s 707. That is a 50% delta in favor of AMD, meaning the Ryzen 7 1700 completes the render workload in roughly half the time per unit of score. This is not a marginal lead; it is a categorical difference in throughput.

The single-core Cinebench R15 test narrows the gap considerably, but AMD still holds the advantage. The Ryzen 7 1700 posts 147 points, while the Xeon E3-1280 v5 manages 99. The deltaPct here is -32.7, indicating the Intel processor trails by about a third. For a chip with a higher base clock (3.70 GHz versus 3.00 GHz) and a higher boost clock (4.00 GHz versus 3.70 GHz), losing single-core by that margin is notable. It suggests that architectural efficiency, not raw clock speed, is driving the result. The Skylake core in the Xeon is older and less efficient per clock than the Zen core in the Ryzen, at least in this benchmark.

Looking at the broader benchmark suites, the same trend holds. The Xeon E3-1280 v5 has Cinebench R20 scores of 2946 multi-core and 415 single-core, plus Cinebench R23 scores of 7015 multi-core and 990 single-core. The Ryzen 7 1700 does not have those specific tests in the data, but its average benchmark score across all tests is 2015, which is very close to the Intel’s 2029. That near-parity in average score, despite the Ryzen winning the head-to-head tests by large margins, reflects that the two processors land in the same overall performance tier. Both sit at the 45th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce this positioning. The Xeon E3-1280 v5’s closest competitor is the Xeon E3-1260L v5 with an identical average score of 2029, a 0% delta. The Ryzen 7 1700’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B at 2012, a 0.2% delta in favor of the Ryzen. In other words, neither chip is an outlier; each is surrounded by comparable performers. But the head-to-head data shows that when these two specific CPUs are compared directly, the Ryzen 7 1700 is the stronger part.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 wins zero of the two recorded head-to-head benchmarks. That is a stark result. In the data provided, there is no test where the Intel part comes out ahead. The wins column for the Xeon is empty, while the Ryzen 7 1700 claims both. This does not mean the Xeon is without merit; it has a lower TDP of 80 watts versus the Ryzen’s 65 watts, which is a specification difference, but the benchmark results do not favor it anywhere.

Where the Ryzen 7 1700 wins is clear: multi-core and single-core rendering workloads as measured by Cinebench R15. The multi-core win is the more decisive one. With 8 cores and 16 threads against the Xeon’s 4 cores and 8 threads, the Ryzen has double the thread count, and the 50% delta in the multi-core test reflects that hardware advantage. The single-core win is more surprising given the clock speed disadvantage, but the 32.7% delta shows that Zen’s per-thread performance is substantially better than Skylake’s in this workload.

For users who care about single-threaded responsiveness, the data still points to AMD. The Ryzen 7 1700’s 147 points in Cinebench R15 single-core is not just a win; it is a dominant one. The Xeon’s 99 points places it well behind, and no interpretation of the numbers can flip that result. The Intel chip’s only potential claim to a win would be in scenarios not covered by the benchmark set, such as specific server workloads or ECC memory configurations, but the data as presented gives AMD every victory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 scores 1414 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, while the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 scores 707. That is a 50% delta in favor of AMD.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the two recorded head-to-head tests (Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core), the Intel processor has zero wins, and the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 has two wins.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 scores 147 in Cinebench R15 single-core, compared to 99 for the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5. The deltaPct is -32.7, meaning the Intel chip trails by roughly a third.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 has an average benchmark score of 2029, and the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 has an average of 2015. Both sit at the 45th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the closest rival to each processor in the database?

A: For the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5, the closest rival is the Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 with an identical average score of 2029. For the AMD Ryzen 7 1700, the closest rival is the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B with an average score of 2012, a 0.2% delta.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.70 GHz for the Intel and 3.00 GHz for the AMD. Boost clocks are 4.00 GHz for the Intel and 3.70 GHz for the AMD. The TDP differs as well: the Intel part is rated at 80 watts, the AMD part at 65 watts.

The sockets are incompatible. The Intel chip uses Intel Socket 1151, while the AMD chip uses AMD Socket AM4. The Intel part has a locked multiplier, while the AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking. The memory bus is dual-channel for both, and both support DDR4, but the AMD chip has a listed memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the Intel chip has no bandwidth figure in the data. Both support ECC memory.

The production status differs. The Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 is marked as end-of-life, while the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is active. The release dates are also different: the Intel part launched on 2015-10-18, and the AMD part launched on 2017-03-01. The market segments differ, with the Intel aimed at Server/Workstation and the AMD at Desktop. The launch MSRP for the Intel is $612, and for the AMD it is $329.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is substantial. The Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 is built on the Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-DT codename, using a 14 nm process node from Intel’s own foundry. It packs 1,750 million transistors into a 122 mm² die. The cache layout is 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 uses the Zen architecture, codenamed Zen (Summit Ridge), also on a 14 nm process node but fabricated by GlobalFoundries. The transistor count is 4,800 million, and the die size is 213 mm² — significantly larger than the Intel die. Cache is more generous: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache, double the Intel’s L3.

The generation labels differ too. The Intel part is listed as “Xeon E3 (Skylake-DT),” while the AMD part is “Ryzen 7 (Zen (Summit Ridge))” from the 1000 series. Neither chip has integrated graphics, and both use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part’s part number is SR2LC, and the AMD part’s is YD1700BBAEBOX. The Intel part has no listed memory bandwidth, while the AMD part specifies 42.7 GB/s.

The cache hierarchy differences are directly relevant to performance. The AMD chip has more L1 and L2 per core, plus double the L3. Combined with double the cores, the Ryzen 7 1700 has a structural advantage in multi-threaded workloads. The Intel chip compensates with higher clocks, but the benchmark data shows that compensation is insufficient.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a 50% delta in multi-core and a 32.7% delta in single-core. If the selection is between these two specific processors, the Ryzen 7 1700 is the stronger performer in rendering workloads as measured by Cinebench R15. The Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 has no recorded benchmark win to its name.

Who should pick the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5? Based strictly on the data, only someone prioritizing the specific server/workstation market segment, the end-of-life status being acceptable, or the 80-watt TDP profile would consider it. But the benchmark scores do not support that choice from a performance standpoint. The Intel chip’s average score of 2029 is nearly identical to the AMD’s 2015, yet the head-to-head tests show the AMD part winning by wide margins. The Intel chip also has a higher launch MSRP of $612 versus $329 for the AMD.

Who should pick the AMD Ryzen 7 1700? Anyone who needs multi-core throughput, as the 1414 versus 707 score in Cinebench R15 multi-core demonstrates. The Ryzen also wins single-core, so there is no workload in the provided data where the Intel part is preferable. The unlocked multiplier on the AMD chip allows for further overclocking, and the 65-watt TDP is lower. The Ryzen 7 1700 is active in production, while the Xeon is end-of-life.

The verdict is straightforward: the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 is the better processor in this comparison. The data shows a decisive win in both benchmark categories, a larger core and thread count, more cache, and a lower TDP. The only areas where the Intel part leads are clock speed and launch MSRP, but neither translates into a benchmark victory. For users choosing between these two, the Ryzen 7 1700 is the data-driven pick.