Xeon E5-1620 v2 vs Ryzen 3 3200G
Description
The E5-1620 v2 is based on Ivy Bridge architecture while the 3200G is based on Zen+.
Using the multithread performance as a reference, the E5-1620 v2 gets a score of 144.6 k points while the 3200G gets 166.8 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 E5-1620 v2 gets a score of 144.6 k points while the 3200G gets 166.8 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
306e4
810f81
Core
Ivy Bridge-EP
Picasso
Base frecuency
3.7 GHz
3.6 GHz
Boost frecuency
3.9 GHz
4 GHz
Socket
LGA 2011
AM4
Cores/Threads
4 /8
4/4
TDP
130 W
65 W
Cache L1 (d+i)
4x32+x4x32 kB
4x64+4x32 kB
Cache L2
4x256 kB
4x512 kB
Cache L3
10240 kB
4096 kB
Date
September 2013
July 2019
Mean monothread perf.
34.37k points
49.21k points
Mean multithread perf.
144.57k points
168.69k 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
E5-1620 v2
3200G
Test#1 (Integers)
12.55k
13.05k (x1.04)
Test#2 (FP)
12.14k
22.88k (x1.88)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
4.83k
5.39k (x1.12)
Test#1 (Memory)
4.85k
7.31k (x1.51)
TOTAL
34.37k
48.63k (x1.41)
Multithread
E5-1620 v2
3200G
Test#1 (Integers)
51.93k
51.73k (x1)
Test#2 (FP)
56.7k
87.74k (x1.55)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
23.81k
20.74k (x0.87)
Test#1 (Memory)
12.14k
6.57k (x0.54)
TOTAL
144.57k
166.79k (x1.15)
Performance/W
E5-1620 v2
3200G
Test#1 (Integers)
399 points/W
796 points/W
Test#2 (FP)
436 points/W
1350 points/W
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
183 points/W
319 points/W
Test#1 (Memory)
93 points/W
101 points/W
TOTAL
1112 points/W
2566 points/W
Performance/GHz
E5-1620 v2
3200G
Test#1 (Integers)
3217 points/GHz
3262 points/GHz
Test#2 (FP)
3113 points/GHz
5719 points/GHz
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
1238 points/GHz
1348 points/GHz
Test#1 (Memory)
1244 points/GHz
1828 points/GHz
TOTAL
8812 points/GHz
12157 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