AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 vs Intel Xeon Silver 4116 Comparison

# Intel Xeon Silver 4116 vs AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700

The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 represent two different philosophies in computing: one designed for server and workstation workloads, the other for desktop platforms. Both processors arrived in mid-2017, with the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 launching first on June 28, 2017, followed by the Xeon Silver 4116 on July 10, 2017. The benchmark database shows a consistent pattern across all six Cinebench tests: the Xeon Silver 4116 wins every single comparison, though by a narrow margin that rarely exceeds 3.4 percent. This raises an interesting question: does the Xeon's victory come from raw core count, architectural choices, or something more nuanced?

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon Silver 4116 takes a clean sweep in the head-to-head record, winning all six benchmark comparisons. The wins span both multi-core and single-core workloads, meaning the Intel part dominates in every measured scenario. However, the margins are remarkably consistent and tight: every delta sits between 3.3 and 3.4 percent. This uniformity suggests the Xeon's advantage comes from a fundamental architectural edge rather than workload-specific optimization.

The Ryzen 7 PRO 1700, despite losing all six tests, still posts respectable scores that place it in the same performance neighborhood. Its average benchmark score of 3613 places it in the 55th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Xeon Silver 4116 achieves an average score of 3733 and the 56th percentile. The one-percentile gap reinforces the idea that these are closely matched processors overall, even though the Xeon wins every direct comparison.

For use-case differentiation, the data points toward the Xeon Silver 4116 being the stronger choice for both single-threaded and multi-threaded applications. The Ryzen 7 PRO 1700, with its lower average score and identical loss pattern, appears better suited for scenarios where its lower power draw and desktop platform features matter more than raw benchmark output. The Xeon's server/workstation market segment and the Ryzen's desktop segment suggest different deployment environments, but the benchmark results alone do not favor the AMD part in any test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their internal design. The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 uses the Skylake-SP architecture built on a 14 nm process, fabricated by Intel itself. It contains 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 uses the Zen architecture, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by GlobalFoundries, and packs 8 cores with 16 threads. The AMD part runs at a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz and boosts to 3.70 GHz.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. The Xeon allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16.5 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen provides 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. This means the Xeon has more L2 cache per core but less L1 per core, while total L3 capacities are close, with the Xeon holding a slight edge at 16.5 MB versus 16 MB.

Transistor counts reveal another difference: the Xeon Silver 4116 integrates 8,000 million transistors, while the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 has 4,800 million and a die size of 213 mm². The Xeon's larger transistor budget supports its 12-core design and server-oriented features. The Ryzen's smaller transistor count aligns with its 8-core configuration and desktop focus.

Memory support is DDR4 for both, and both support ECC memory. The Ryzen specifies dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the Xeon's memory bus and bandwidth details are not listed in the database. The Ryzen also lists PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon's PCIe configuration is absent from the records. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 3647, while the Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4. The Ryzen has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the Xeon's multiplier is locked. The AMD part is marked as Active in production status, while the Xeon's production status is not provided.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the Xeon Silver 4116 scoring 1301 against the Ryzen's 1259, a 3.3 percent advantage. The single-core R15 result gives the Xeon 183 versus 177, a 3.4 percent edge. Moving to R20, the multi-core scores are 5421 for the Xeon and 5246 for the Ryzen, again a 3.3 percent difference, while single-core shows 765 versus 740, a 3.4 percent margin. The R23 multi-core test records 12908 for the Xeon and 12491 for the Ryzen, with the same 3.3 percent gap, and single-core R23 gives 1822 against 1763, another 3.3 percent difference.

The consistent 3.3 to 3.4 percent margins across all six tests suggest a systematic advantage rather than test-specific behavior. The Xeon's 12 cores versus the Ryzen's 8 cores might explain part of the multi-core gap, but the single-core wins indicate the Intel architecture also holds a slight edge in per-thread performance, despite the Ryzen's higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz compared to the Xeon's 3.00 GHz. This is a curious result: the Ryzen runs at a higher clock speed, yet still loses single-core tests by over three percent.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the picture. The Xeon Silver 4116 averages 3733 across all recorded tests, while the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 averages 3613, a difference of 120 points or about 3.3 percent. These averages place the Xeon at the 56th percentile of all CPUs and the Ryzen at the 55th, showing that both sit near the middle of the performance distribution, with the Xeon marginally higher.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, covering Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 does not win a single comparison.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest margin is 3.4 percent, recorded in the Cinebench R15 single-core test and the Cinebench R20 single-core test. All other tests show a 3.3 percent difference.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon Silver 4116 and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 support ECC memory, according to the database records.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Are the clock speeds different?

A: Yes. The Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, while the Xeon Silver 4116 runs at 2.10 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Xeon Silver 4116 has an average benchmark score of 3733, compared to 3613 for the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700. The Xeon also holds a higher percentile rank at 56 percent versus 55 percent.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. Core count: the Xeon has 12 cores, the Ryzen has 8. Thread count: 24 versus 16. Base clock: 2.10 GHz for the Xeon, 3.00 GHz for the Ryzen. Boost clock: 3.00 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. Thermal design power: 85 watts for the Xeon, 65 watts for the Ryzen. Socket: Intel Socket 3647 versus AMD Socket AM4. Architecture: Skylake versus Zen. Codename: Skylake-SP versus Zen. Foundry: Intel versus GlobalFoundries. Transistors: 8,000 million versus 4,800 million. Die size: not listed for the Xeon, 213 mm² for the Ryzen. L1 cache: 64 KB per core versus 96 KB per core. L2 cache: 1 MB per core versus 512 KB per core. L3 cache: 16.5 MB shared versus 16 MB shared. Memory bus: not listed versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: not listed versus 42.7 GB/s. PCIe: not listed versus Gen 3, 16 lanes. Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Desktop. Production status: not listed versus Active. Release date: July 10, 2017 versus June 28, 2017. Multiplier unlocked: false versus true.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the Intel Xeon Silver 4116 in every measured test, making it the stronger performer for users who prioritize raw Cinebench scores. Its 12-core, 24-thread configuration, combined with a consistent 3.3 to 3.4 percent lead over the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700, positions it as the superior choice for multi-threaded workloads like rendering or video encoding, where its server/workstation heritage applies.

However, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 offers compensating advantages that the data does not capture in benchmark scores. It consumes less power, with a 65-watt TDP against the Xeon's 85 watts, and comes with an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. It also provides a desktop-friendly Socket AM4 platform with dual-channel memory and PCIe Gen 3 support. For users building a desktop system who value lower power draw, overclocking flexibility, and a mainstream platform, the Ryzen remains viable despite losing all benchmark comparisons.

The one-percentile difference in overall CPU ranking, 56 versus 55, shows these processors land in nearly the same performance tier across the entire database. The Xeon's wins are real but narrow, never exceeding 3.4 percent. The Ryzen's higher clock speeds do not translate into benchmark victories, suggesting the Xeon's architectural efficiency compensates for its lower clocks. The choice ultimately depends on platform needs: the Xeon suits server and workstation environments where its socket and locked multiplier are acceptable, while the Ryzen fits desktop builds where its lower TDP and unlocked multiplier matter. The data does not support declaring a universal winner; it supports the Xeon for benchmark performance and the Ryzen for desktop platform flexibility.