Xeon E5-2630L v3 vs Ryzen 5 3400G
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 3400G outperforms Xeon E5-2630L v3 by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon E5-2630L v3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1089 | 1126 |
| Place by popularity | 66 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Picasso (2019−2022) | Haswell-EP (2014−2015) |
| Release date | 12 June 2019 (5 years ago) | 8 September 2014 (10 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon E5-2630L v3 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 2.9 GHz |
| Bus type | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 37 | no data |
| L1 cache | 384 KB | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 210 mm2 | 356 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 60 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4940 Million | 2,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon E5-2630L v3 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) | 2 |
| Socket | AM4 | FCLGA2011 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon E5-2630L v3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 46 Bit |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon E5-2630L v3 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon E5-2630L v3 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon E5-2630L v3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2933 | DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 768 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 46.933 GB/s | 59 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon E5-2630L v3.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 40 |
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.99 | 5.63 |
| Recency | 12 June 2019 | 8 September 2014 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 8 |
| Threads | 8 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 55 Watt |
Ryzen 5 3400G has a 6.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 83.3% more advanced lithography process.
Xeon E5-2630L v3, on the other hand, has 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 18.2% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon E5-2630L v3.
Note that Ryzen 5 3400G is a desktop processor while Xeon E5-2630L v3 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon E5-2630L v3, 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.
