Xeon X7550 vs Ryzen 5 1600
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Xeon X7550 by an impressive 56% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 1600 and Xeon X7550 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 963 | 1236 |
| Place by popularity | 55 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.57 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.25 | 3.61 |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | no data |
| Release date | 11 April 2017 (7 years ago) | 1 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $219 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 1600 and Xeon X7550 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 32 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 18 MB L3 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 69 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | - |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 1600 and Xeon X7550 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | no data |
| Socket | AM4 | FCLGA1567 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 130 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Xeon X7550. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 1.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
Security technologies
Ryzen 5 1600 and Xeon X7550 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Xeon X7550 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Xeon X7550. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR3-800, DDR3-978, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333, Speed-1066 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Xeon X7550.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.73 | 4.96 |
| Recency | 11 April 2017 | 1 January 2010 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 8 |
| Threads | 12 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 130 Watt |
Ryzen 5 1600 has a 55.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
Xeon X7550, on the other hand, has 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads.
The Ryzen 5 1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon X7550 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 5 1600 is a desktop processor while Xeon X7550 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600 and Xeon X7550, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
