Ryzen 3 2200G vs Xeon E5-2680 v4

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2680 v4
2016
14 cores / 28 threads, 120 Watt
11.51
+163%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by a whopping 163% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 2200G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking6321284
Place by popularitynot in top-10070
Cost-effectiveness evaluation25.768.79
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Xeon (Desktop)AMD Ryzen 3
Architecture codenameBroadwell-EP (2016)Raven Ridge (2017−2018)
Release date10 March 2016 (8 years ago)12 February 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,745$99
Current price$141 (0.1x MSRP)$88 (0.9x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 has 193% better value for money than Ryzen 3 2200G.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 2200G 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 cores14 (Tetradeca-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads284
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz3.7 GHz
Bus support9.6 GT/s / QPIno data
L1 cache448 KB128K (per core)
L2 cache3.5 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache35 MB4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size306 mm2210 mm2
Maximum core temperature86 °Cno data
Number of transistors4700 Million4,950 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 2200G 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 configuration21 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA2011AM4
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 2200G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT
AES-NI++
FMAno data+
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+no data
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
StatusLaunchedno data

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 2200G technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
Identity Protection-no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 2200G are enumerated here.

AMD-Vno data+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 2200G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory size1.5 TB64 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s46.933 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 2200G.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes4012

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.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 11.51
+163%
Ryzen 3 2200G 4.37

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by 163% 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%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 17795
+163%
Ryzen 3 2200G 6763

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by 163% 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%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 1012
+1.7%
Ryzen 3 2200G 995

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by 2% 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%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 6972
+145%
Ryzen 3 2200G 2847

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by 145% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 3707
Ryzen 3 2200G 4625
+24.8%

Ryzen 3 2200G outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 25% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 30922
+85.3%
Ryzen 3 2200G 16684

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by 85% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

3DMark06 CPU

3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 8286
+24.9%
Ryzen 3 2200G 6636

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by 25% in 3DMark06 CPU.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 18
+165%
Ryzen 3 2200G 7

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by 165% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 1657
+187%
Ryzen 3 2200G 577

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by 187% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 100
Ryzen 3 2200G 146
+45.6%

Ryzen 3 2200G outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 46% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 1.13
Ryzen 3 2200G 1.68
+48.7%

Ryzen 3 2200G outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 49% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 9.4
+203%
Ryzen 3 2200G 3.1

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by 203% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 6323
+95.8%
Ryzen 3 2200G 3229

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by 96% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 79
+99.2%
Ryzen 3 2200G 40

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by 99% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 137
Ryzen 3 2200G 184
+34.7%

Ryzen 3 2200G outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 35% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 21194
+90.9%
Ryzen 3 2200G 11105

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by 91% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core.

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 2961
Ryzen 3 2200G 4082
+37.9%

Ryzen 3 2200G outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 38% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.51 4.37
Recency 10 March 2016 12 February 2018
Physical cores 14 4
Threads 28 4
Cost $1745 $99
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 65 Watt

The Xeon E5-2680 v4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 3 2200G in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2680 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 3 2200G is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 2200G, 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.


Intel Xeon E5-2680 v4
Xeon E5-2680 v4
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
Ryzen 3 2200G

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.


4.5 3302 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2680 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 2130 votes

Rate Ryzen 3 2200G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2680 v4 or Ryzen 3 2200G, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.