AMD EPYC 7251 vs Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7251 and Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 are closely matched server processors that land in the same performance tier, but the data reveals a consistent, if narrow, edge for the AMD part across every Cinebench workload tested. Both chips sit at the 56th percentile among all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 3671 and 3658 respectively, placing them within a fraction of a percent of each other in overall compute capability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7251, though the margins are remarkably thin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7251 scores 1279 against the Xeon’s 1274, a delta of just 0.4%. The single-core R15 run tells a similar story: 180 versus 179, a 0.6% advantage for AMD. These are not transformative gaps, but they are consistent across every test iteration.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The EPYC 7251 posts 5331 in multi-core versus 5311 for the Xeon, again a 0.4% difference. Single-core R20 sees 752 against 749, another 0.4% edge for AMD. The most recent Cinebench R23 suite reinforces the trend: 12694 versus 12647 in multi-core and 1792 versus 1785 in single-core, both with a 0.4% delta in favor of the EPYC 7251.

The data indicates that despite having fewer cores, the AMD part manages to outpace the Intel Xeon in every measured workload. The EPYC 7251 wins all six head-to-head comparisons. The largest margin is the 0.6% single-core R15 result, while the remaining five benchmarks all show the same 0.4% advantage. This consistency suggests the AMD architecture delivers slightly better instruction-per-clock efficiency, offsetting the Xeon’s 12-core versus 8-core count advantage.

When placed in the broader context of their nearest rivals, both processors are essentially interchangeable in aggregate performance. The EPYC 7251’s average score of 3671 is nearly identical to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X’s 3673 (a -0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i3-13100E’s 3668 (a 0.1% delta). The Xeon E5-2658A v3, with its 3658 average, sits just 0.3% behind the Core i3-13100E and 0.4% ahead of the Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3. These figures underscore how close the two server chips are in real-world rendering workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7251 has an average benchmark score of 3671, which is 0.4% higher than the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3’s 3658.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7251 in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 7251 scores 12694 compared to the Xeon’s 12647, a 0.4% advantage in favor of AMD.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 win any head-to-head benchmarks?

A: No. The data shows the AMD EPYC 7251 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with the Xeon winning zero.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7251 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7251 and the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 are at the 56th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3?

A: The launch MSRP of the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 is $1832.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7251 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, making it the clear choice for raw Cinebench performance. Its victories span both multi-core and single-core workloads across R15, R20, and R23 versions. The largest win is a 0.6% margin in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 180 versus 179. In all other tests, the margin is a consistent 0.4%. This makes the EPYC 7251 the superior option for rendering tasks, content creation workflows, or any application that relies heavily on CPU compute performance.

The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3, despite losing all six benchmark comparisons, still holds a structural advantage that is not reflected in Cinebench scores. With 12 cores and 24 threads compared to the EPYC 7251’s 8 cores and 16 threads, the Xeon offers 50% more physical cores and threads. This suggests that in highly parallel workloads that scale beyond what Cinebench measures, the Xeon could potentially close the gap or even take the lead. Additionally, the Xeon has a lower TDP of 105 watts versus 120 watts for the EPYC, making it potentially more attractive for dense server deployments where power efficiency is a priority. The Xeon also carries a 30 MB shared L3 cache, while the EPYC has 32 MB, a minor difference.

For users running Cinebench-like workloads, the EPYC 7251 is the winner. For those with thread-hungry applications that utilize more than 16 threads, the Xeon’s additional cores may offer a practical advantage, even if that edge does not appear in these specific benchmark results.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in core configuration, power, memory architecture, and platform support. The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 features 12 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7251 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Xeon has a base clock of 2.20 GHz, slightly higher than the EPYC’s 2.10 GHz, but both share the same 2.90 GHz boost clock.

Thermal design power differs by 15 watts: the Xeon is rated at 105 W, the EPYC at 120 W. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The EPYC 7251 is a server processor with an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Xeon E5-2658A v3 is locked.

Memory support shows a major divergence. Both support DDR4, but the EPYC 7251 features an eight-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 has a quad-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. This gives the EPYC more than double the memory bandwidth, a significant advantage for memory-intensive workloads.

Production status also differs: the EPYC 7251 is listed as Active, while the Xeon E5-2658A v3 is End-of-life. The EPYC 7251 has a part number of PS7251BFV8SAFPS7251BFAFWOF, while the Xeon’s part number is SR27T. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $1832, while the EPYC 7251 has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two chips is substantial, reflecting different design philosophies and process technologies. The AMD EPYC 7251 is built on the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, and represents the EPYC 7001 series. It uses a 14 nm process node manufactured by GlobalFoundries. The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 is based on the Haswell architecture, codenamed Haswell-EP, and uses a 22 nm process node from Intel’s own fabs.

Transistor counts differ markedly. The EPYC 7251 packs 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 has 2,600 million transistors on a larger 356 mm² die. This means the AMD chip achieves a much higher transistor density, consistent with its more advanced 14 nm process versus the Xeon’s 22 nm node.

Cache hierarchy also differs. The EPYC 7251 has a 96 KB L1 cache per core and a 512 KB L2 cache per core, while the Xeon has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. For L3 cache, the EPYC has 32 MB shared, while the Xeon has 30 MB shared. The EPYC’s larger per-core L1 and L2 caches likely contribute to its superior single-core benchmark results.

PCIe support is identical in generation — both are Gen 3 — but the Xeon explicitly lists 40 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC does not specify lane count in the data. Both support ECC memory and lack integrated graphics. Both are DDR4-capable, but the memory bus width difference — eight channels versus four — is a fundamental architectural distinction that gives the EPYC a massive theoretical bandwidth advantage (153.6 GB/s versus 68.3 GB/s). This architectural gap, combined with the Zen core’s efficiency, explains how the 8-core EPYC 7251 can outperform the 12-core Xeon in every benchmark tested despite having fewer threads at its disposal.