Ryzen 5 3400G vs Xeon E5-2620
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 3400G outperforms Xeon E5-2620 by an impressive 75% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2620 and Ryzen 5 3400G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1586 | 1126 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.73 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | 3.32 | 8.47 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) | Picasso (2019−2022) |
| Release date | 6 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $36 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2620 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 cores | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 7.2 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 37 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 15360 KB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 435 mm2 | 210 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 77 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,270 million | 4,950 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2620 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 configuration | 2 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Ryzen 5 3400G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2620 and Ryzen 5 3400G 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 Xeon E5-2620 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 E5-2620 and Ryzen 5 3400G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-2933 |
| Maximum memory size | 384 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.6 GB/s | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Ryzen 5 3400G.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 20 |
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 | 3.33 | 5.82 |
| Recency | 6 March 2012 | 7 July 2019 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 4 |
| Threads | 12 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 65 Watt |
Xeon E5-2620 has 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads.
Ryzen 5 3400G, on the other hand, has a 74.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 166.7% more advanced lithography process, and 46.2% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 5 3400G is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2620 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 5 3400G is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2620 and Ryzen 5 3400G, 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.
