Xeon E3-1275 v3 vs Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE outperforms Xeon E3-1275 v3 by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE and Xeon E3-1275 v3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1251 | 1312 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.60 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.96 | 5.10 |
| Architecture codename | Raven Ridge (2017−2018) | Haswell-WS (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 10 May 2018 (6 years ago) | 2 June 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $531 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE and Xeon E3-1275 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 32 | no data |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 8192 KB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 210 mm2 | 160 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4,950 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE and Xeon E3-1275 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) | 1 |
| Socket | AM4 | FCLGA1150 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 84 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE and Xeon E3-1275 v3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| SIPP | - | + |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE and Xeon E3-1275 v3 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
| Anti-Theft | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE and Xeon E3-1275 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 PRO 2400GE and Xeon E3-1275 v3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2933 | DDR3, DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 46.933 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 | Intel HD P4600 |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.25 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE and Xeon E3-1275 v3 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE and Xeon E3-1275 v3.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 12 | 16 |
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 | 4.82 | 4.55 |
| Recency | 10 May 2018 | 2 June 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 84 Watt |
Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE has a 5.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 140% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE and Xeon E3-1275 v3.
Note that Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE is a desktop processor while Xeon E3-1275 v3 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE and Xeon E3-1275 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.
