AMD EPYC 7261 vs Intel Xeon E-2324G Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2324G and AMD EPYC 7261 occupy different corners of the server CPU market, but benchmark data shows a consistent, if narrow, performance edge for the AMD part across all recorded multi-threaded and single-threaded tests. The EPYC 7261 wins six out of six head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 6.7% to 7.2% depending on the workload. The Xeon E-2324G counters with a much higher boost clock, a newer platform, and integrated graphics, yet the raw compute scores in the database favor the older EPYC part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the uniformity of the AMD EPYC 7261's advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 954 against 886 for the Xeon, a 7.1% deficit for Intel. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story: 134 for the EPYC versus 125 for the Xeon, a 6.7% gap. These are not isolated results; they repeat across every generation of Cinebench in the database.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC 7261 records 3979 points in multi-core, while the Xeon E-2324G manages 3694, a 7.2% difference. Single-core R20 shows 561 versus 521, again a 7.1% margin. The R23 suite follows the same trajectory: 9476 multi-core for the EPYC, 8797 for the Xeon, and 1337 single-core versus 1242. In every test, the AMD part leads by roughly seven percent, which suggests a consistent architectural or clock-related advantage rather than a workload-specific fluke.

Notably, the Xeon E-2324G has a significantly higher boost clock. The database lists a boost clock of 4.60 GHz for Intel versus 2.90 GHz for AMD. Despite this 1.7 GHz clock advantage, the Xeon still trails in single-core benchmarks, which indicates that the EPYC's Zen architecture extracts more instructions per clock cycle in these specific tests. The single-core R23 result, at 1337 versus 1242, translates to a 7.1% lead for AMD, even with the lower clock speed. This is a clear case where raw frequency does not tell the full performance story.

Geekbench results are available only for the Intel part in this comparison. The Xeon E-2324G scores 5257 in multi-core and 2059 in single-core. No corresponding EPYC scores exist in the database for these tests, so a direct comparison is impossible. However, the Cinebench data provides a complete picture across six workloads, and the EPYC wins all of them.

The average benchmark score in the database places the Xeon E-2324G at 2823, with a percentile rank of 51 among all CPUs. The EPYC 7261 has an average score of 2740 and a percentile rank of 50. Despite losing every head-to-head, the Xeon actually has a slightly higher average score and percentile. This apparent contradiction stems from the fact that the average includes Geekbench results for the Xeon, which are not mirrored for the EPYC. The head-to-head tests, which use identical workloads for both parts, tell a different story.

For context, the Xeon E-2324G's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5450U with an average score of 2829, the Intel Atom x7211RE at 2811, the Intel Core i5-10600 at 2837, and the Intel Core i7-6800K at 2838. The deltas here are small, ranging from -0.5% to +0.4%. The EPYC 7261's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E-2176M at 2751, the Intel Xeon E5-2628L v3 at 2724, the AMD Ryzen 7 4700U at 2722, and the AMD Ryzen 3 4300GE at 2759, with deltas from -0.7% to +0.7%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 7261 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. The margins are consistent, ranging from 6.7% to 7.2% across R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core modes.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E-2324G have any performance advantage?

A: The database shows no benchmark wins for the Xeon. Its boost clock of 4.60 GHz is considerably higher than the EPYC's 2.90 GHz, but this does not translate into a score advantage in any recorded test.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The Xeon E-2324G has an average benchmark score of 2823, while the EPYC 7261 has an average of 2740. The Xeon also holds a slightly higher percentile rank at 51 versus 50 for the EPYC.

Q: How does the EPYC 7261 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The EPYC 7261's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon E-2176M with an average score of 2751, a 0.4% deficit for the EPYC. The AMD Ryzen 7 4700U at 2722 and the AMD Ryzen 3 4300GE at 2759 are also close, with deltas of 0.7% and -0.7% respectively.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: Yes, the database lists both the Intel Xeon E-2324G and the AMD EPYC 7261 as having an active production status.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2324G includes UHD Graphics P750. The AMD EPYC 7261 has no integrated graphics, according to the recorded data.

The Verdict

For workloads that rely on the specific Cinebench tests recorded here, the AMD EPYC 7261 is the faster part. It wins every head-to-head comparison, with a typical lead of about 7% over the Xeon E-2324G. This holds true for both single-threaded and multi-threaded tests, which is notable given the Xeon's much higher boost clock. The EPYC's 8 cores and 16 threads versus the Xeon's 4 cores and 4 threads likely explain the multi-core results, but the single-core results are more nuanced and favor AMD in every instance.

The Intel Xeon E-2324G has its own strengths. It carries a 65 W TDP, which is dramatically lower than the EPYC's 170 W. It also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the EPYC lists only PCIe Gen 3. The Xeon includes integrated UHD Graphics P750, which the EPYC lacks entirely. For systems that need a display output or lower power consumption, the Xeon is the clear choice.

However, the benchmark data is unambiguous. The EPYC 7261 outperforms the Xeon E-2324G in all six recorded head-to-head tests. A user prioritizing raw compute performance in these specific benchmarks should select the EPYC. A user prioritizing power efficiency, newer PCIe support, or integrated graphics should select the Xeon. The average benchmark scores are close, 2823 versus 2740, and the percentile ranks are nearly identical, so the overall performance picture is balanced, but the direct comparisons favor AMD.

The EPYC 7261 also offers eight-channel memory support with a memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, compared to the Xeon's dual-channel 51.2 GB/s. This is a substantial difference in memory throughput, which could affect real-world server workloads beyond the Cinebench suite. The EPYC's 32 MB of shared L3 cache also dwarfs the Xeon's 8 MB, providing more on-die data capacity.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The Intel Xeon E-2324G has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7261 has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.10 GHz for Intel and 2.50 GHz for AMD. Boost clocks are 4.60 GHz for Intel and 2.90 GHz for AMD. The TDP is 65 W for Intel and 170 W for AMD.

Cache configurations diverge significantly. The Xeon has 80 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The EPYC has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference is substantial: 8 MB versus 32 MB.

Memory support is another major differentiator. Both support DDR4, but the Xeon uses a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses an eight-channel bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation. The Xeon lists PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC lists PCIe Gen 3 with no lane count provided. The Xeon includes integrated UHD Graphics P750; the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The Xeon's socket is Intel Socket 1200, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3.

The Xeon has a locked multiplier, while the EPYC has an unlocked multiplier. The launch MSRP for the Xeon is $209; no launch MSRP is recorded for the EPYC. The Xeon was released on 2021-09-07, and the EPYC was released on 2018-06-13.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon E-2324G belongs to the Xeon E-2300 series and uses the Rocket Lake architecture, specifically the Rocket Lake-E codename. It is built on a 14 nm process at Intel's foundry, with a die size of 276 mm². The EPYC 7261 belongs to the EPYC 7001 series and uses the Zen architecture with the Naples codename. It is also built on a 14 nm process, but at GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 213 mm². The EPYC's transistor count is recorded as 4,800 million, while no transistor count is listed for the Xeon.

The core count difference stems from the architectural designs. Rocket Lake is a desktop-derived architecture scaled for entry servers, while Zen (Naples) was designed from the ground up for high-core-count server parts. The EPYC's 8 cores and 16 threads double the Xeon's 4 cores and 4 threads. The L3 cache difference, 32 MB versus 8 MB, reflects the server-oriented design of the EPYC, which benefits from larger shared caches in multi-threaded workloads.

Memory architecture also reflects the different design goals. The EPYC's eight-channel memory controller with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth is a server-class feature, while the Xeon's dual-channel 51.2 GB/s is more typical of a workstation or entry-server part. The EPYC's unlocked multiplier is unusual for a server CPU, but it is recorded in the database.

The Xeon's integrated UHD Graphics P750 is a notable feature for a server part, as most server CPUs lack any graphics capability. This makes the Xeon suitable for compact or headless systems that still need a basic display output. The EPYC, with no integrated graphics, requires a discrete GPU or a BMC with video output.

PCIe generation differences also align with release timing. The Xeon, released in 2021, supports PCIe Gen 4. The EPYC, released in 2018, supports PCIe Gen 3. For systems with modern NVMe storage or GPUs, the Xeon's PCIe Gen 4 support provides a bandwidth advantage, though the EPYC's lane count is not recorded for comparison.

The process nodes are identical at 14 nm, but the foundries differ, with Intel manufacturing its own chip and GlobalFoundries manufacturing the AMD part. The die sizes are 276 mm² for Intel and 213 mm² for AMD. The EPYC's higher transistor count, 4,800 million, combined with a smaller die, suggests a denser design. The Xeon's larger die with fewer transistors reflects a different design philosophy, likely prioritizing higher clock speeds.

The Xeon's 4.60 GHz boost clock is the highest frequency in this comparison, but the benchmark results show that the EPYC's lower-clocked cores still deliver better scores in all tests. This points to the Zen architecture's efficiency in instruction execution, at least for the Cinebench workloads recorded. The EPYC's 32 MB L3 cache likely contributes to its single-core advantage, as it provides more room for frequently accessed data.