Xeon E-2378 vs Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G
2018
4 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
5.57
Xeon E-2378
2021
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
11.42
+105%

Xeon E-2378 outperforms Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G by a whopping 105% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Xeon E-2378 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1161699
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.89no data
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5no data
Power efficiency7.8116.02
Architecture codenameRaven Ridge (2017−2018)Rocket Lake-E (2021)
Release date12 February 2018 (6 years ago)8 September 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$169no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Xeon E-2378 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads816
Base clock speed3.6 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3.9 GHz4.8 GHz
Bus rateno data8 GT/s
Multiplier36no data
L1 cache128K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache4 MB (shared)16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size210 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors4,950 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Xeon E-2378 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketAM4FCLGA1200
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Xeon E-2378. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Precision Boost 2+no data

Security technologies

Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Xeon E-2378 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
MPX-+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Xeon E-2378 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Xeon E-2378. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelDDR4-3200
Maximum memory size64 GB128 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth46.933 GB/sno data
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon RX Vega 11no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Xeon E-2378.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes1244

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.

Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G 5.57
Xeon E-2378 11.42
+105%

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.

Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G 8531
Xeon E-2378 17472
+105%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.57 11.42
Recency 12 February 2018 8 September 2021
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 8 16

Xeon E-2378 has a 105% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The Xeon E-2378 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G is a desktop processor while Xeon E-2378 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G and Xeon E-2378, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G
Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G
Intel Xeon E-2378
Xeon E-2378

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 174 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 8 votes

Rate Xeon E-2378 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G or Xeon E-2378, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.