Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G vs Xeon X3350
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G outperforms Xeon X3350 by a whopping 616% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X3350 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2086 | 693 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | 35.00 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Renoir (2020−2022) |
| Release date | 1 January 2008 (16 years ago) | 21 July 2020 (3 years ago) |
| Current price | $36 | $180 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G has 69900% better value for money than Xeon X3350.
Detailed specifications
Xeon X3350 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G 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 | no data | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 2.66 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 4.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | no data | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 12 MB L2 Cache | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Die size | no data | 156 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 71 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 9800 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X3350 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G 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 | no data | 1 |
| Socket | LGA775 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X3350 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon X3350 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G 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 Xeon X3350 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X3350 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 51.196 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon Vega 7 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X3350 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
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 5 PRO 4650G outperforms Xeon X3350 by 616% 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 5 PRO 4650G outperforms Xeon X3350 by 615% 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 5 PRO 4650G outperforms Xeon X3350 by 288% 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 5 PRO 4650G outperforms Xeon X3350 by 391% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.46 | 10.46 |
| Recency | 1 January 2008 | 21 July 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
The Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon X3350 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon X3350 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X3350 and Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G, 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.
