Xeon E5-2643 vs Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 outperforms Xeon E5-2643 by a whopping 492% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and Xeon E5-2643 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 280 | 1563 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.91 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 9 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 28.97 | 2.45 |
| Architecture codename | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) |
| Release date | 30 September 2019 (5 years ago) | 6 March 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $218 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and Xeon E5-2643 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 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 24 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.3 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 768 KB | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 64 MB | 10240 KB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm, 12 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | no data | 294 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 73 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,270 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and Xeon E5-2643 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) | 2 |
| Socket | Socket AM4 | FCLGA2011 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 130 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and Xeon E5-2643. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® AVX |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and Xeon E5-2643 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 9 PRO 3900 and Xeon E5-2643 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 9 PRO 3900 and Xeon E5-2643. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-3200 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 128 GB | 384 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.196 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and Xeon E5-2643.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 40 |
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 | 19.90 | 3.36 |
| Recency | 30 September 2019 | 6 March 2012 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 4 |
| Threads | 24 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 130 Watt |
Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 has a 492.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads, a 357.1% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2643 in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is a desktop processor while Xeon E5-2643 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and Xeon E5-2643, 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.
