Xeon W3570 vs Ryzen 7 PRO 1700
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 outperforms Xeon W3570 by a whopping 349% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Xeon W3570 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 758 | 1797 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.37 | 3.56 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 7 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Bloomfield (2008−2010) |
| Release date | 29 June 2017 (7 years ago) | March 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $480 |
| Current price | $676 | $364 (0.8x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon W3570 has 6% better value for money than Ryzen 7 PRO 1700.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Xeon W3570 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.46 GHz |
| Bus support | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 263 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 68 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 731 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | No |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Xeon W3570 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 | FCLGA1366 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 130 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Xeon W3570. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 1.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| PAE | no data | 36 Bit |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Xeon W3570 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 7 PRO 1700 and Xeon W3570 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | no data |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Xeon W3570. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 24 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | 32 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Xeon W3570.
| 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.
Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 outperforms Xeon W3570 by 349% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 outperforms Xeon W3570 by 349% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 outperforms Xeon W3570 by 108% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 outperforms Xeon W3570 by 190% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.48 | 2.11 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 16 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 130 Watt |
The Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W3570 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 and Xeon W3570, 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.
