Ryzen 3 3300X vs Xeon E5-2680 v4

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2680 v4
2016
14 cores / 28 threads, 120 Watt
11.50
+32.5%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 3300X by a substantial 32% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 3300X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking632826
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation18.4533.31
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Xeon (Desktop)no data
Architecture codenameBroadwell-EP (2016)Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)
Release date10 March 2016 (8 years ago)24 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,745$120
Current price$196 (0.1x MSRP)$145 (1.2x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 3 3300X has 81% better value for money than Xeon E5-2680 v4.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 3300X 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)
Threads288
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz4.3 GHz
Bus support9.6 GT/s / QPIno data
L1 cache448 KB96K (per core)
L2 cache3.5 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache35 MB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm
Die size306 mm274 mm2
Maximum core temperature86 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data95 °C
Number of transistors4700 Million3,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 3300X 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
SocketFCLGA2011AM4
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 3300X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX286x MMX(+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A,-64, AMD-V, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, SHA, Precision Boost 2
AES-NI++
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 3300X 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 3300X 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 3300X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size1.5 TBno data
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 3300X.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes4016

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 11.50
+32.5%
Ryzen 3 3300X 8.68

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 3300X by 32% 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 17789
+32.5%
Ryzen 3 3300X 13425

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 3300X by 33% 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
Ryzen 3 3300X 1665
+64.5%

Ryzen 3 3300X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 65% 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 6974
+20.8%
Ryzen 3 3300X 5775

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 3300X by 21% 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 3300X 5856
+58%

Ryzen 3 3300X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 58% 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
+21.7%
Ryzen 3 3300X 25416

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 3300X by 22% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

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
+49.3%
Ryzen 3 3300X 12

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 3300X by 49% 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
+54.7%
Ryzen 3 3300X 1071

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 3300X by 55% 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 3300X 195
+95%

Ryzen 3 3300X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 95% 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 3300X 2.28
+102%

Ryzen 3 3300X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 102% 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
+59.3%
Ryzen 3 3300X 5.9

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 3300X by 59% 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
Ryzen 3 3300X 7177
+13.5%

Ryzen 3 3300X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 14% 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
+28%
Ryzen 3 3300X 62

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 3 3300X by 28% 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 3300X 234
+70.9%

Ryzen 3 3300X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 71% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.50 8.68
Recency 10 March 2016 24 April 2020
Physical cores 14 4
Threads 28 8
Cost $1745 $120
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 65 Watt

The Xeon E5-2680 v4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 3 3300X in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2680 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 3 3300X is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 3 3300X, 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 3300X
Ryzen 3 3300X

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 3269 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 1023 votes

Rate Ryzen 3 3300X 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 3300X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.