AMD EPYC 7261 vs Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7261 and the Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 are both 8-core, 16-thread server processors, yet they represent two very different design philosophies from different eras. The data in the database shows a consistent, albeit narrow, performance advantage for the AMD part across all recorded Cinebench tests, despite the Intel chip having higher clock speeds. This analysis will break down the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and what the scores imply for different workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results from the database are remarkably consistent across all six Cinebench tests, with the AMD EPYC 7261 winning every single matchup. However, the margins are extremely tight, ranging from 1.3% to 1.5%. This is not a case of one processor dominating another; rather, it is a story of a slight but uniform performance edge for the EPYC part.

In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the EPYC 7261 scored 954 against the Xeon E5-2640 v3's 942, a 1.3% difference. The single-core result for R15 shows the AMD part at 134 versus 132 for the Intel, a 1.5% lead. This pattern continues in Cinebench R20, where the EPYC 7261 posts a multicore score of 3979 against 3926 for the Intel, again a 1.3% delta. The R20 single-core test shows a 561 to 553 lead for AMD, a 1.4% advantage.

The most modern test in the database, Cinebench R23, tells the exact same story. The EPYC 7261 achieves a multicore score of 9476, while the Xeon E5-2640 v3 reaches 9348, a 1.4% difference. In the R23 single-core test, the scores are 1337 and 1319 respectively, again a 1.4% delta for AMD. The consistency of these margins suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency advantage for the AMD chip, as it achieves these wins despite the Intel processor having a significant clock speed advantage. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, while the AMD part operates at a 2.50 GHz base and a 2.90 GHz boost clock. The fact that the lower-clocked AMD processor consistently outperforms the higher-clocked Intel one indicates that instructions per clock (IPC) is the deciding factor here.

Where Each One Wins

Given the uniform results in the head-to-head benchmarks, the use-case split is less about workload type and more about platform-level characteristics. The AMD EPYC 7261 wins every single computational benchmark recorded for both multi-threaded and single-threaded tasks, so from a raw processing speed perspective, it is the clear choice across the board.

The Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3's advantages are not found in the Cinebench scores but in its platform attributes. The most striking difference is thermal design power (TDP): the Intel chip has a TDP of 90, while the AMD EPYC 7261 has a TDP of 170. This suggests the Intel processor could be more suitable for dense server environments where heat dissipation and power delivery are constrained, even if it is slower. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock, 3.40 GHz versus 2.90 GHz, but the data shows this does not translate into a performance win in the recorded tests.

The EPYC 7261's wins are also defined by its platform. It supports eight-channel memory, providing a memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, compared to the Xeon's quad-channel support with 59.7 GB/s. This massive difference implies that the AMD platform would be the superior choice for workloads heavily dependent on memory throughput, such as large-scale virtualization or in-memory databases, even if the CPU core performance delta is small. The AMD part is also listed as having an unlocked multiplier, which could appeal to users looking to tune performance, though the data provided does not include overclocking results.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different architectural eras and design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7261 uses the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. In contrast, the Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-EP, on Intel's 22 nm process.

The transistor counts and die sizes highlight the different approaches. The AMD chip packs 4,800 million transistors into a 213 mm² die, while the Intel chip contains 2,600 million transistors on a much larger 356 mm² die. This indicates that AMD's 14 nm process allowed for a denser, more efficient design. The cache hierarchies also differ significantly. The AMD EPYC 7261 features a larger L3 cache at 32 MB shared, versus 20 MB shared on the Intel part. Per-core L1 and L2 caches are also larger on the AMD chip: 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, compared to 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core for the Intel. This larger, faster cache hierarchy on the AMD part likely contributes to its IPC advantage and explains why it can outperform the Intel chip despite lower clock speeds.

Memory support is another major differentiator. While both support DDR4 memory, the AMD EPYC 7261 features an eight-channel memory bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 is limited to a quad-channel bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. This is a 2.8x difference in peak memory bandwidth, which is a critical factor for server workloads. Both processors support ECC memory and PCIe Gen 3, though the Intel part specifically lists 40 lanes for the CPU. The AMD part is listed under the EPYC 7001 series, while the Intel is a member of the Xeon E5 v3 family, and their sockets are not compatible: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 2011-3.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 has a higher boost clock at 3.40 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 7261's 2.90 GHz.

Q: Despite the clock speed difference, which CPU wins in single-threaded Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7261 wins the single-core Cinebench R23 test with a score of 1337, compared to the Intel's 1319, a 1.4% lead.

Q: What is the most significant memory bandwidth advantage?

A: The AMD EPYC 7261 supports an eight-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, while the Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 uses a quad-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7261 has a production status of "Active", while the Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 is listed as "End-of-life".

Q: Do the processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7261 and the Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 have 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which CPU has a lower thermal design power?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 has a significantly lower TDP of 90, compared to the AMD EPYC 7261's TDP of 170.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 7261 is the faster processor. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, covering both single and multi-threaded workloads, with a consistent margin of roughly 1.3% to 1.5%. The data suggests that for any application where raw CPU rendering or compute performance is the sole metric, the EPYC 7261 is the superior choice.

However, the Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 presents a compelling counter-argument for specific use cases. Its dramatically lower TDP (90 vs 170) makes it a more power-efficient option for high-density server deployments where cooling and power budgets are a primary concern. If a workload is not performance-bound but thermally constrained, the Intel part would be the more sensible platform choice despite its lower scores.

For workloads that are heavily dependent on memory bandwidth, the AMD EPYC 7261 is the definitive winner. Its eight-channel memory controller and 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth provide a 2.8x advantage over the Intel part's 59.7 GB/s. This makes the EPYC 7261 the better platform for memory-intensive tasks like large virtual machine farms or data analytics, even if the core performance delta is small. The Intel part also carries a launch MSRP of $939, though this is a historical data point and not a current market indicator.

The decision comes down to priorities. For pure performance and memory throughput, choose the AMD EPYC 7261. For lower power consumption and reduced thermal output in a dense environment, the Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 is the more logical, albeit slower, option.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7261 | Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 |

|---|---|---|

| Series / Codename | EPYC 7001 series (Naples) | Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP) |

| Manufacturer | AMD | Intel |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.90 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 170 W | 90 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Architecture | Zen | Haswell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | Intel |

| Transistors | 4,800 million | 2,600 million |

| Die Size | 213 mm² | 356 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 170.6 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2018-06-13 | 2014-09-07 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | PS7261BEV8RAF | SR205 |