Xeon Gold 6530 vs Ryzen 5 PRO 1500

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 PRO 1500
2017
4 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
5.73
Xeon Gold 6530
2023
32 cores / 64 threads, 270 Watt
41.26
+620%

Xeon Gold 6530 outperforms Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 by a whopping 620% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Gold 6530 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking112661
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data56.73
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5no data
Power efficiency8.3414.46
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Emerald Rapids (2023)
Release date29 June 2017 (7 years ago)14 December 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$2,128

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Gold 6530 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads864
Base clock speed3.5 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz4 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier35no data
L1 cache96K (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache16 MB (shared)160 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size192 mm22x 763 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data74 °C
Number of transistors4,800 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Gold 6530 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)2
SocketAM4FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt270 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Gold 6530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
TSX-+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Gold 6530 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Gold 6530 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Gold 6530. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelDDR5 @ 4800 MT/s (1 DPC)
Maximum memory size64 GB4 TB
Max memory channels28
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/sno data
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card-N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Gold 6530.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes2080

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.

Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 5.73
Xeon Gold 6530 41.26
+620%

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.

Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 9099
Xeon Gold 6530 65533
+620%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.73 41.26
Recency 29 June 2017 14 December 2023
Physical cores 4 32
Threads 8 64
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 270 Watt

Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 has 315.4% lower power consumption.

Xeon Gold 6530, on the other hand, has a 620.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads.

The Xeon Gold 6530 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 and Xeon Gold 6530, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500
Ryzen 5 PRO 1500
Intel Xeon Gold 6530
Xeon Gold 6530

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.5 43 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 2 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 or Xeon Gold 6530, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.