Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U vs Xeon E3-1505M v6
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E3-1505M v6 outperforms Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E3-1505M v6 and Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1274 | 1332 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.57 | no data |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Xeon E3 | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | 9.85 | 27.80 |
| Architecture codename | Kaby Lake (2016−2019) | Picasso (2019−2022) |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 8 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $623 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E3-1505M v6 and Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 30 | 21 |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | no data | 209.78 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4940 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E3-1505M v6 and Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U 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 | FCBGA1440 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E3-1505M v6 and Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Speed Shift | + | no data |
| My WiFi | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| SIPP | + | - |
| Smart Response | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E3-1505M v6 and Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| MPX | + | - |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| SGX | Yes with Intel® ME | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E3-1505M v6 and Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U 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 E3-1505M v6 and Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 38.397 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics P630 | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) ( - 1200 MHz) |
| Max video memory | 1.7 GB | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.1 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E3-1505M v6 and Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DVI | + | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Xeon E3-1505M v6 and Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | + | no data |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | 4096x2304@30Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over eDP | 4096x2304@60Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | 4096x2304@60Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over VGA | N/A | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Xeon E3-1505M v6 and Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | 12 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E3-1505M v6 and Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 12 |
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.71 | 4.43 |
| Integrated graphics card | 3.11 | 4.51 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 8 April 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
Xeon E3-1505M v6 has a 6.3% higher aggregate performance score.
Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U, on the other hand, has 45% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 2 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon E3-1505M v6 and Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U.
Be aware that Xeon E3-1505M v6 is a mobile workstation processor while Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E3-1505M v6 and Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U, 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.
