Xeon E5-2620 v4 vs Ryzen 3 3200U
Description
The E5-2620 v4 is based on Broadwell architecture while the 3200U is based on Zen+.
Using the multithread performance as a reference, the E5-2620 v4 gets a score of 237.8 k points while the 3200U gets 61.2 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.
Using the multithread performance as a reference, the E5-2620 v4 gets a score of 237.8 k points while the 3200U gets 61.2 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
406f1
810f81
Core
Broadwell-EP
Picasso
Base frecuency
2.1 GHz
2.6 GHz
Boost frecuency
3 GHz
3.5 GHz
Socket
Socket 2011-3
BGA-FP5
Cores/Threads
8/16
2/4
TDP
85 W
15 W
Cache L1 (d+i)
8x32+8x32 kB
2x64+2x32 kB
Cache L2
8x256 kB
2x512 kB
Cache L3
20480 kB
4096 kB
Date
March 2016
January 2019
Mean monothread perf.
29.39k points
38.85k points
Mean multithread perf.
237.83k points
61.23k 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
E5-2620 v4
3200U
Test#1 (Integers)
12.16k
11.13k (x0.92)
Test#2 (FP)
11.82k
19.38k (x1.64)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
3.02k
4.47k (x1.48)
Test#1 (Memory)
2.4k
3.87k (x1.61)
TOTAL
29.39k
38.85k (x1.32)
Multithread
E5-2620 v4
3200U
Test#1 (Integers)
103.77k
17.13k (x0.17)
Test#2 (FP)
102.28k
30.56k (x0.3)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
26.13k
9.44k (x0.36)
Test#1 (Memory)
5.65k
4.09k (x0.72)
TOTAL
237.83k
61.23k (x0.26)
Performance/W
E5-2620 v4
3200U
Test#1 (Integers)
1221 points/W
1142 points/W
Test#2 (FP)
1203 points/W
2038 points/W
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
307 points/W
629 points/W
Test#1 (Memory)
66 points/W
273 points/W
TOTAL
2798 points/W
4082 points/W
Performance/GHz
E5-2620 v4
3200U
Test#1 (Integers)
4054 points/GHz
3181 points/GHz
Test#2 (FP)
3939 points/GHz
5536 points/GHz
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
1005 points/GHz
1277 points/GHz
Test#1 (Memory)
799 points/GHz
1105 points/GHz
TOTAL
9798 points/GHz
11099 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