Ryzen 9 4900HS vs Xeon E5-2698 v3

Ryzen 9 4900HS vs Xeon E5-2698 v3 Performance Spectrum

Ryzen 9 4900HS

8 / 16

18,793

0.0%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Xeon E5-2698 v3

16 / 32

18,870

+0.4%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Ryzen 9 4900HS vs Xeon E5-2698 v3 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Ryzen 9 4900HS vs Xeon E5-2698 v3: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Ryzen 9 4900HS

2020

Why buy it

✅Draws 35W instead of 135W, a 100W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (8 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Vega 8, while Xeon E5-2698 v3 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2698 v3 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (18,793 vs 18,870).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 40 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2698 v3, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads.

Xeon E5-2698 v3

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.3% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+400% larger total L3 cache (40 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads.

Trade-offs

❌285.7% higher power demand at 135W vs 35W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen 9 4900HS can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-2698 v3 better than Ryzen 9 4900HS?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-2698 v3 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen 9 4900HS is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E5-2698 v3 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.3% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5-2698 v3 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 16 cores and 32 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 400% larger total L3 cache (40 MB vs 8 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Xeon E5-2698 v3 still makes the most sense overall. Xeon E5-2698 v3 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.3% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Ryzen 9 4900HS makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2014). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Ryzen 9 4900HS vs Xeon E5-2698 v3 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Ryzen 9 4900HS

The Ryzen 9 4900HS is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 March 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Renoir (Zen 2) (2020) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 4.3 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: FP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 35 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-4266. Passmark benchmark score: 18,793 points. Launch price was $299.

Xeon E5-2698 v3

The Xeon E5-2698 v3 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Haswell-EP (2014−2015) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 3.6 GHz. L3 cache: 40 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 135 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 18,870 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Ryzen 9 4900HS packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Xeon E5-2698 v3 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon E5-2698 v3 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.3 GHz on the Ryzen 9 4900HS versus 3.6 GHz on the Xeon E5-2698 v3 — a 17.7% clock advantage for the Ryzen 9 4900HS (base: 3 GHz vs 2.3 GHz). The Ryzen 9 4900HS uses the Renoir (Zen 2) (2020) architecture (7 nm), while the Xeon E5-2698 v3 uses Haswell-EP (2014−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 9 4900HS scores 18,793 against the Xeon E5-2698 v3's 18,870 — a 0.4% lead for the Xeon E5-2698 v3. L3 cache: 8 MB (total) on the Ryzen 9 4900HS vs 40 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-2698 v3.

Feature	Ryzen 9 4900HS	Xeon E5-2698 v3
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	16 / 32+100%
Boost Clock	4.3 GHz+19%	3.6 GHz
Base Clock	3 GHz+30%	2.3 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB (total)	40 MB (total)+400%
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)+100%	256K (per core)
Process	7 nm-68%	22 nm
Architecture	Renoir (Zen 2) (2020)	Haswell-EP (2014−2015)
PassMark	18,793	18,870

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 9 4900HS uses the FP6 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-2698 v3 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Ryzen 9 4900HS	Xeon E5-2698 v3
Socket	FP6	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	LPDDR4-4266	—
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	8	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (Ryzen 9 4900HS) / not specified (Xeon E5-2698 v3). The Ryzen 9 4900HS includes integrated graphics (Vega 8), while the Xeon E5-2698 v3 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Ryzen 9 4900HS targets Mobile High-End.