AMD EPYC 7203P vs Intel Xeon Phi 7210 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a stark contrast between these two server processors. The AMD EPYC 7203P wins 14 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 takes only 3. The margin of victory for AMD is often enormous, particularly in rendering and single-threaded workloads.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7203P scores 18,714 versus the Xeon Phi's 6,210, a 66.8% advantage. The single-core gap is equally dramatic: 2,642 versus 876, again a 66.8% delta. These Cinebench results repeat across every version of the test. In R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 1,886 against 625 (66.9% ahead), and in R20 multi-core it reaches 7,859 versus 2,608 (66.8% ahead). The pattern is consistent: the EPYC 7203P dominates all render workloads by roughly two-thirds.

The PassMark suite tells a more nuanced story. The Xeon Phi 7210 wins data compression with a score of 332,960 versus 254,215, a 31% lead. It also takes extended instructions at 18,359 versus 14,466 (26.9% ahead) and integer math at 84,874 versus 67,083 (26.5% ahead). Those are the only three victories for Intel.

Every other PassMark test goes to AMD, often by massive margins. The find prime numbers test is brutal: 145 for the EPYC versus 10 for the Xeon Phi, a 93.1% deficit for Intel. Physics shows 2,077 versus 198 (90.5% behind). Data encryption sees 17,434 versus 3,455 (80.2% behind). Single-thread performance in PassMark is 2,537 versus 460, an 81.9% gap. Even in floating point math, where the Xeon Phi's architecture might be expected to shine, the EPYC leads 37,049 to 29,356 (20.8% ahead). Random string sorting goes 33,873 to 8,956 (73.6% behind), and multithread shows 22,017 versus 7,306 (66.8% behind).

The average benchmark scores reflect this mixed picture. The Xeon Phi 7210 sits at 29,245, placing it at the 81st percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 7203P averages 28,583, at the 80th percentile. Despite the EPYC winning most head-to-head comparisons, the Xeon Phi's wins in compression, extended instructions, and integer math pull its average score nearly level. The two processors are close in the database's overall ranking, separated by only a few tenths of a percent against their nearest rivals.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7203P is the clear choice for general compute, rendering, and single-threaded tasks. Every Cinebench test, both single and multi-core, goes to AMD by roughly two-thirds. PassMark multithread also favors the EPYC at 22,017 versus 7,306. For workloads like physics simulation, the EPYC is over ten times faster in the recorded score. Data encryption performance is heavily in AMD's favor, useful for secure workloads. Prime number finding, a common benchmark for integer-heavy scientific code, also belongs to the EPYC with a 93.1% lead.

The Xeon Phi 7210 has a narrower set of strengths, but they are real. Data compression shows a 31% lead, making it the standout win for Intel. Extended instructions score 26.9% higher on the Xeon Phi, indicating some instruction-heavy code may run better there. Integer math also favors Intel by 26.5%. These three wins suggest the Xeon Phi retains some utility in specific compression or integer processing tasks, but those are isolated cases in the recorded data. For floating point math, the EPYC still wins despite the Xeon Phi's design heritage, posting 37,049 versus 29,356.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Phi 7210 uses the Knights Landing architecture, a many-core design built for high-throughput parallel workloads. It packs 64 cores and 256 threads on a 14 nm process from Intel's own foundry. The transistor count is 8,000 million. Each core has 32 KB of L1 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache, with no L3 cache listed. This is an older design, released in June 2016, and was aimed at server and workstation compute.

The AMD EPYC 7203P uses Zen 3, codenamed Milan, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with 8,300 million transistors across a die size of 2x 81 mm². Cache layout is different: 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 64 MB of L3 cache. The L3 cache is a significant architectural advantage for workloads that benefit from shared data access. The EPYC is a newer part, released in September 2023, and remains in active production.

Memory support is DDR4 for both, and both support ECC memory. The EPYC specifies an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Xeon Phi does not list a memory bus width or bandwidth in the database. PCIe support also differs: the EPYC lists Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon Phi has no PCIe information recorded.

The process node gap is notable: 14 nm for Intel versus 7 nm for AMD. That generational difference helps explain the EPYC's massive efficiency in single-threaded and power-sensitive workloads. The Xeon Phi's 256 threads are its main weapon, but the EPYC's modern cores are far more capable per thread.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is core count. The Xeon Phi 7210 has 64 cores and 256 threads, while the EPYC 7203P has 8 cores and 16 threads. Clock speeds reverse the picture: the Xeon Phi runs at 1.30 GHz base and 1.50 GHz boost, while the EPYC runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. The EPYC's higher clocks are a major factor in its single-thread dominance.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The Xeon Phi draws 215 W, while the EPYC is rated at 120 W. That is a meaningful efficiency gap, especially in dense server deployments. The Xeon Phi uses Intel Socket 3647, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3.

Cache specifications diverge significantly. The Xeon Phi has 32 KB L1 per core and 512 KB L2 per core, with no L3. The EPYC has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. The EPYC also lists a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s and an eight-channel memory bus, neither of which is specified for the Xeon Phi.

The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $348. The Xeon Phi has no launch MSRP recorded. The EPYC's production status is listed as Active, while the Xeon Phi's production status is not recorded. The EPYC is part of the EPYC 7003 series, while the Xeon Phi's series field is null. Part numbers also differ: the Xeon Phi is SR2MESR2X4, and the EPYC is 100-000001287100-100001287WOF.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Phi 7210 has 64 cores and 256 threads. The AMD EPYC 7203P has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 7203P scores 18,714 versus the Xeon Phi's 6,210, a 66.8% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the Xeon Phi win any benchmarks?

A: Yes. The Xeon Phi 7210 wins data compression (332,960 versus 254,215, 31% ahead), extended instructions (18,359 versus 14,466, 26.9% ahead), and integer math (84,874 versus 67,083, 26.5% ahead).

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: The find prime numbers test shows the largest delta. The EPYC scores 145 versus the Xeon Phi's 10, a 93.1% difference.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Xeon Phi 7210 has a 1.30 GHz base clock and 1.50 GHz boost. The EPYC 7203P has a 2.80 GHz base clock and 3.40 GHz boost.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory and DDR4?

A: Yes, both support ECC memory and DDR4. The EPYC additionally specifies an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner. The AMD EPYC 7203P wins 14 of 17 comparisons and leads by enormous margins in rendering, single-thread, physics, encryption, and prime number workloads. Its 7 nm Zen 3 architecture, 64 MB shared L3 cache, and higher clock speeds make it the superior processor for most modern server workloads. The 66.8% advantage across every Cinebench test is decisive.

The Intel Xeon Phi 7210 is not without merit. Its 31% lead in data compression, 26.9% lead in extended instructions, and 26.5% lead in integer math show that certain specialized workloads still favor its many-core design. The 256 threads may help in highly parallel integer or compression tasks that can saturate all of them. However, the Xeon Phi's 215 W TDP, lower clocks, and lack of L3 cache limit its appeal.

For anyone choosing between these two, the EPYC 7203P is the practical pick for general server duties, rendering, and single-threaded responsiveness. The Xeon Phi 7210 should only be considered if the specific workload matches its three winning benchmark categories and can exploit its thread count. The EPYC's active production status and recorded launch MSRP also suggest ongoing availability, while the Xeon Phi's status is not recorded. Based strictly on the measured data, the EPYC 7203P is the stronger processor in the vast majority of scenarios.