Ryzen 3 3200G vs Xeon E5-1620 v2
Description
The 3200G is based on Zen+ architecture while the E5-1620 v2 is based on Ivy Bridge.
Using the multithread performance as a reference, the 3200G gets a score of 166.8 k points while the E5-1620 v2 gets 144.6 k points.
Summarizing, the 3200G is 1.2 times faster than the E5-1620 v2 . To get a proper comparison between both models, take a look to the data shown below.
Using the multithread performance as a reference, the 3200G gets a score of 166.8 k points while the E5-1620 v2 gets 144.6 k points.
Summarizing, the 3200G is 1.2 times faster than the E5-1620 v2 . To get a proper comparison between both models, take a look to the data shown below.
Specs
CPUID
810f81
306e4
Core
Picasso
Ivy Bridge-EP
Base frecuency
3.6 GHz
3.7 GHz
Boost frecuency
4 GHz
3.9 GHz
Socket
AM4
LGA 2011
Cores/Threads
4/4
4 /8
TDP
65 W
130 W
Cache L1 (d+i)
4x64+4x32 kB
4x32+x4x32 kB
Cache L2
4x512 kB
4x256 kB
Cache L3
4096 kB
10240 kB
Date
July 2019
September 2013
Mean monothread perf.
49.21k points
34.37k points
Mean multithread perf.
168.69k points
144.57k points
AVX optimized benchmark
The benchmark in mode II (AVX) is optimized to used 256 bits registers beside the first version of the Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX). The first AVX compatible CPU was released in 2011.
Monothread
3200G
E5-1620 v2
Test#1 (Integers)
13.05k
12.55k (x0.96)
Test#2 (FP)
22.88k
12.14k (x0.53)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.39k
4.83k (x0.9)
Test#1 (Memory)
7.31k
4.85k (x0.66)
TOTAL
48.63k
34.37k (x0.71)
Multithread
3200G
E5-1620 v2
Test#1 (Integers)
51.73k
51.93k (x1)
Test#2 (FP)
87.74k
56.7k (x0.65)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
20.74k
23.81k (x1.15)
Test#1 (Memory)
6.57k
12.14k (x1.85)
TOTAL
166.79k
144.57k (x0.87)
Performance/W
3200G
E5-1620 v2
Test#1 (Integers)
796 points/W
399 points/W
Test#2 (FP)
1350 points/W
436 points/W
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
319 points/W
183 points/W
Test#1 (Memory)
101 points/W
93 points/W
TOTAL
2566 points/W
1112 points/W
Performance/GHz
3200G
E5-1620 v2
Test#1 (Integers)
3262 points/GHz
3217 points/GHz
Test#2 (FP)
5719 points/GHz
3113 points/GHz
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
1348 points/GHz
1238 points/GHz
Test#1 (Memory)
1828 points/GHz
1244 points/GHz
TOTAL
12157 points/GHz
8812 points/GHz
Monothread performance graph
Monothread performance graphics gives the performance vs time. They are useful to measure the time it takes to the CPU to reach the maximum performance.
Usually, CPU's performance will be steady during these tests but if it has a slow frequency strategy, the first samples will show a lower score.
Usually, CPU's performance will be steady during these tests but if it has a slow frequency strategy, the first samples will show a lower score.
Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]
Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]
Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]
Multithread performance graph
Multithread graphs measure the performance against a heavy load during certain time.
If CPU's TDP doesn't limit the frequency and the machine is properly cooled, performance should remain steady vs time. Otherwise, the performance score will oscillate or decrease over time.
If CPU's TDP doesn't limit the frequency and the machine is properly cooled, performance should remain steady vs time. Otherwise, the performance score will oscillate or decrease over time.
Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]
Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]
Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]
Hardlimit Benchmark Central - Ver. 3.11.4