Xeon W-3245M vs Ryzen 5 3400G
Aggregate performance score
Xeon W-3245M outperforms Ryzen 5 3400G by a whopping 190% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon W-3245M processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1114 | 380 |
| Place by popularity | 92 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.30 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | Intel Xeon W |
| Power efficiency | 8.47 | 7.79 |
| Architecture codename | Picasso (2019−2022) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) | 3 June 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $5,002 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon W-3245M 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.2 GHz | 4.6 GHz |
| Bus type | PCIe 3.0 | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 37 | 32 |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | 1 MB |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 22 MB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 210 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 77 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4,950 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon W-3245M 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 | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM4 | FCLGA3647 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 205 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon W-3245M. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX-512 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon W-3245M 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 Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon W-3245M are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon W-3245M. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2933 | DDR4-2933 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 2 TB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 6 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 46.933 GB/s | 140.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon W-3245M.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 64 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.82 | 16.88 |
| Recency | 7 July 2019 | 3 June 2019 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 16 |
| Threads | 8 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 205 Watt |
Ryzen 5 3400G has an age advantage of 1 month, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 215.4% lower power consumption.
Xeon W-3245M, on the other hand, has a 190% higher aggregate performance score, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
The Xeon W-3245M is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 3400G in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 5 3400G is a desktop processor while Xeon W-3245M is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 3400G and Xeon W-3245M, 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.
