Ryzen 3 3200U vs Xeon E5-2658 v4
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2658 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 3200U by a whopping 282% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 3 3200U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 848 | 1793 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.89 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Xeon E5 | AMD Ryzen 3 |
| Power efficiency | 8.19 | 15.02 |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell (2015−2019) | Picasso-U (Zen) (2019) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 6 January 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,832 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 3 3200U 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 | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 28 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus type | QPI | PCIe 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 2 × 9.6 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 23 | 26 |
| L1 cache | no data | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 3.5 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 35 MB | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 306.18 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4700 Million | 4940 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 3 3200U 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 3 3200U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 3 3200U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 3 3200U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 3 3200U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 1,536 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 ( - 1200 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 3 3200U.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 12 |
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 | 9.09 | 2.38 |
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 6 January 2019 |
| Physical cores | 14 | 2 |
| Threads | 28 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 15 Watt |
Xeon E5-2658 v4 has a 281.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 600% more physical cores and 600% more threads.
Ryzen 3 3200U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 600% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E5-2658 v4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 3 3200U in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2658 v4 is a mobile workstation processor while Ryzen 3 3200U is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 3 3200U, 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.
