| | | | | | |

Ryzen 3 3200U vs Xeon E5-2620 v4


Description
The 3200U is based on Zen+ architecture while the E5-2620 v4 is based on Broadwell.

Using the multithread performance as a reference, the 3200U gets a score of 61.2 k points while the E5-2620 v4 gets 237.8 k points.

Summarizing, the E5-2620 v4 is 3.9 times faster than the 3200U. To get a proper comparison between both models, take a look to the data shown below.

Specs
CPUID
810f81
406f1
Core
Picasso
Broadwell-EP
Architecture
Base frecuency
2.6 GHz
2.1 GHz
Boost frecuency
3.5 GHz
3 GHz
Socket
BGA-FP5
Socket 2011-3
Cores/Threads
2/4
8/16
TDP
15 W
85 W
Cache L1 (d+i)
2x64+2x32 kB
8x32+8x32 kB
Cache L2
2x512 kB
8x256 kB
Cache L3
4096 kB
20480 kB
Date
January 2019
March 2016
Mean monothread perf.
38.85k points
29.39k points
Mean multithread perf.
61.23k points
237.83k points

AVX2 optimized benchmark
The benchmark in mode III (AVX2), like AVX1, is optimized to used 256 bits registers beside the second version of the Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX). The first AVX2 compatible CPU was released in 2013.
Monothread
3200U
E5-2620 v4
Test#1 (Integers)
11.13k
12.16k (x1.09)
Test#2 (FP)
19.38k
11.82k (x0.61)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
4.47k
3.02k (x0.67)
Test#1 (Memory)
3.87k
2.4k (x0.62)
TOTAL
38.85k
29.39k (x0.76)

Multithread

3200U

E5-2620 v4
Test#1 (Integers)
17.13k
103.77k (x6.06)
Test#2 (FP)
30.56k
102.28k (x3.35)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
9.44k
26.13k (x2.77)
Test#1 (Memory)
4.09k
5.65k (x1.38)
TOTAL
61.23k
237.83k (x3.88)

Performance/W
3200U
E5-2620 v4
Test#1 (Integers)
1142 points/W
1221 points/W
Test#2 (FP)
2038 points/W
1203 points/W
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
629 points/W
307 points/W
Test#1 (Memory)
273 points/W
66 points/W
TOTAL
4082 points/W
2798 points/W

Performance/GHz
3200U
E5-2620 v4
Test#1 (Integers)
3181 points/GHz
4054 points/GHz
Test#2 (FP)
5536 points/GHz
3939 points/GHz
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
1277 points/GHz
1005 points/GHz
Test#1 (Memory)
1105 points/GHz
799 points/GHz
TOTAL
11099 points/GHz
9798 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.


Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com

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.


Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com

Hardlimit Benchmark Central - Ver. 3.11.4