Ryzen 5 3400G vs Xeon E3-1285 v4

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E3-1285 v4
2015
4 cores / 8 threads, 95 Watt
4.92
Ryzen 5 3400G
2019
4 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
5.82
+18.3%

Ryzen 5 3400G outperforms Xeon E3-1285 v4 by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Ryzen 5 3400G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking12291112
Place by popularitynot in top-10092
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Seriesno dataAMD Ryzen 5
Power efficiency4.908.47
Architecture codenameBroadwell-DT (2015)Picasso (2019−2022)
Release date2 June 2015 (9 years ago)12 June 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Ryzen 5 3400G 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads88
Base clock speed3.5 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz4.2 GHz
Bus typeno dataPCIe 3.0
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
Multiplierno data37
L1 cache64 KB (per core)384 KB
L2 cache256 KB (per core)2 MB
L3 cache6 MB (shared)4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm12 nm
Die size160 mm2210 mm2
Number of transistors1,400 million4940 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Ryzen 5 3400G 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 configuration11 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA1150AM4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Ryzen 5 3400G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
eDRAM128 MBno data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
FDI+no data

Security technologies

Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Ryzen 5 3400G technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Ryzen 5 3400G 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 Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Ryzen 5 3400G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size32 GB64 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth29.8 GB/s46.933 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardIntel Iris Pro P6300AMD Radeon RX Vega 11
Max video memory32 GBno data
Quick Sync Video+-
Clear Video+no data
Graphics max frequency1.15 GHzno data
Execution Units48no data

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Ryzen 5 3400G integrated GPUs.

Number of displays supported3no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Ryzen 5 3400G.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes1620

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.

Xeon E3-1285 v4 4.92
Ryzen 5 3400G 5.82
+18.3%

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.

Xeon E3-1285 v4 7808
Ryzen 5 3400G 9250
+18.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.92 5.82
Recency 2 June 2015 12 June 2019
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 65 Watt

Ryzen 5 3400G has a 18.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 5 3400G is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E3-1285 v4 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E3-1285 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 5 3400G is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Ryzen 5 3400G, 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.


Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4
Xeon E3-1285 v4
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G
Ryzen 5 3400G

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.


4.4 10 votes

Rate Xeon E3-1285 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 2120 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 3400G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E3-1285 v4 or Ryzen 5 3400G, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.