Xeon E7-4830 vs Ryzen 5 3600
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E7-4830 outperforms Ryzen 5 3600 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 3600 and Xeon E7-4830 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 702 | 617 |
| Place by popularity | 8 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 22.84 | 3.24 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | Intel Xeon E7 |
| Power efficiency | 16.27 | 11.35 |
| Architecture codename | Matisse (2019−2020) | Westmere-EX (2011) |
| Release date | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) | 3 April 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $2,059 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 5 3600 has 605% better value for money than Xeon E7-4830.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 3600 and Xeon E7-4830 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 | 3.6 GHz | 2.13 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | QPI |
| Bus rate | no data | 6.4 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 16 |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 32 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 12 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 513 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 64 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 2,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 3600 and Xeon E7-4830 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) | 4 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | AM4 | LGA1567 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 105 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 3600 and Xeon E7-4830. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 1.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Ryzen 5 3600 and Xeon E7-4830 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 3600 and Xeon E7-4830 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 3600 and Xeon E7-4830. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR3-800, DDR3-978, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333, Speed-1066 |
| Maximum memory size | 128 GB | 2 TB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.196 GB/s | 34.113 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | N/A |
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 | 11.17 | 12.58 |
| Recency | 7 July 2019 | 3 April 2011 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 8 |
| Threads | 12 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 105 Watt |
Ryzen 5 3600 has an age advantage of 8 years, a 357.1% more advanced lithography process, and 61.5% lower power consumption.
Xeon E7-4830, on the other hand, has a 12.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads.
The Xeon E7-4830 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 3600 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 5 3600 is a desktop processor while Xeon E7-4830 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 3600 and Xeon E7-4830, 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.
