AMD EPYC 7262 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6334 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7262 and Intel Xeon Gold 6334 are both 8-core, 16-thread server processors, but they represent two very different generations and design philosophies. The data shows a remarkably consistent pattern: the AMD chip wins every single Cinebench benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, albeit by narrow margins. The EPYC 7262's average benchmark score of 5109 places it slightly ahead of the Xeon Gold 6334's 5043, and both sit at the 60th percentile of all CPUs. For builders choosing between these two, the decision comes down to platform features, architecture, and the specific workload demands, as the raw performance gap is thin but uniformly favors AMD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are decisive in one direction: the AMD EPYC 7262 wins all six head-to-head comparisons. The largest margin comes in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where the EPYC 7262 scores 251 against the Xeon Gold 6334's 247, a 1.6% advantage. This pattern repeats across all single-core tests, with the EPYC 7262 leading by 1.4% in Cinebench R20 single-core (1047 vs 1033) and 1.3% in Cinebench R23 single-core (2493 vs 2461). What is notable is that the single-core advantage is not larger, given the Xeon's higher base and boost clocks, suggesting architectural efficiency differences are at play.

In multi-core workloads, the EPYC 7262 maintains its lead but the margins tighten slightly. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the EPYC 7262 scoring 1780 versus 1757 for the Xeon Gold 6334, a 1.3% difference. The same 1.3% delta appears in both Cinebench R20 multi-core (7418 vs 7322) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (17662 vs 17435). These are small but consistent wins, indicating that the EPYC 7262's 128 MB of total L3 cache provides a tangible benefit in rendering workloads, even though both processors have identical core and thread counts. The data does not support any scenario where the Xeon Gold 6334 outperforms the EPYC 7262 in these tests.

Looking at the broader competitive context, both processors are closely matched to similar rivals. The EPYC 7262's nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-7900X with an average score of 5120, a negligible -0.2% difference. The Xeon Gold 6334's closest competitor is the Intel Core i9-9820X, scoring 5049, just -0.1% higher. Interestingly, both chips share the same nearest rivals in the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5750GE and Intel Xeon W-2155, with the EPYC 7262 leading those by 0.8% and 0.7% respectively, while the Xeon Gold 6334 trails them by -0.5% and -0.6%. This confirms that the EPYC 7262 has a slight but real performance edge over its Intel counterpart.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7262 wins in every measured benchmark category from the FACT PACK, so the use-case split is based on the magnitude of those wins and platform characteristics. For pure Cinebench rendering workloads, the EPYC 7262 is the clear choice, as it holds a 1.3% to 1.6% lead across all six tests. This advantage, while modest, is consistent and suggests that the EPYC 7262 will render slightly faster in single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks alike. The data shows no benchmark where the Xeon Gold 6334 takes the lead, so any workload measured by Cinebench favors AMD.

The Xeon Gold 6334's case for selection rests on its platform and connectivity rather than benchmark performance. It supports 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, which is half the EPYC 7262's 128 lanes, but still substantial for many server configurations. Both processors support eight-channel DDR4 memory with an identical 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, so memory-bound workloads will not differentiate them. The Xeon Gold 6334 does have a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz and boost clock of 3.70 GHz, compared to 3.20 GHz and 3.40 GHz for the EPYC 7262, which could theoretically benefit lightly threaded applications, but the benchmark data does not reflect this as a real-world win. In practice, the EPYC 7262 wins all measured tests, so the Xeon's advantage is purely theoretical based on clock speed.

For workload-specific decisions, the EPYC 7262's larger L3 cache (128 MB total versus 18 MB shared) gives it a clear edge in cache-sensitive applications like databases or virtualization, even if Cinebench only shows a small lead. The Xeon Gold 6334's 1 MB per-core L2 cache versus 512 KB per-core for the EPYC 7262 might help in some latency-sensitive threads, but again, the benchmark results do not confirm this advantage. The verdict is straightforward: choose the EPYC 7262 for any workload represented by Cinebench, and only consider the Xeon Gold 6334 if the 64-lane PCIe configuration or Intel platform features are mandatory.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is between AMD's Zen 2 and Intel's Ice Lake designs. The EPYC 7262 is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and uses a 7 nm process node manufactured by TSMC. This is a chiplet-based design, with a die size listed as 4x 74 mm² and a total of 15,200 million transistors. The Xeon Gold 6334 uses the Ice Lake architecture, codenamed Ice Lake-SP, on Intel's 10 nm process node. The FACT PACK does not provide transistor count or die size for the Intel chip, but the process node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 10 nm typically implies better power efficiency and density for the AMD part.

Cache architecture differs markedly between the two. The EPYC 7262 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of L3 cache per die, totaling 128 MB across the chip. The Xeon Gold 6334 also has 64 KB of L1 per core but doubles the L2 to 1 MB per core, while its L3 is 18 MB shared across all cores. This means the EPYC 7262 has over seven times the total L3 cache, which explains its consistent, if small, benchmark wins in multi-threaded workloads. The per-core L2 advantage for Intel (1 MB vs 512 KB) is offset by the massive L3 disparity.

PCIe lane support is another major architectural difference. The EPYC 7262 provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon Gold 6334 offers 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. This is a critical specification for servers running multiple GPUs, NVMe drives, or high-speed network cards. Both processors share the same memory support (DDR4), eight-channel memory bus, and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, so memory architecture is not a differentiator. The EPYC 7262 also uses the AMD Socket SP3 platform, while the Xeon Gold 6334 uses Intel Socket 4189, meaning they are not interchangeable in existing systems.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are identical: both offer 8 cores and 16 threads. The first clear difference is clock speed, with the Xeon Gold 6334 running at a 3.60 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost, compared to the EPYC 7262's 3.20 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. This gives Intel a 0.40 GHz advantage at base and 0.30 GHz at boost, yet the benchmarks show AMD winning. The TDP also differs, with the EPYC 7262 rated at 155 W and the Xeon Gold 6334 at 165 W, making the AMD chip slightly more power-efficient on paper.

Socket compatibility is an obvious differentiator: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC 7262 versus Intel Socket 4189 for the Xeon Gold 6334. The process node differs as well, with 7 nm from TSMC for AMD and 10 nm from Intel. Cache specifications diverge, as detailed earlier: the EPYC 7262 has 512 KB L2 per core and 128 MB total L3, while the Xeon Gold 6334 has 1 MB L2 per core and 18 MB shared L3. PCIe lane count is another key difference, with 128 lanes for the EPYC 7262 and 64 lanes for the Xeon Gold 6334, both at Gen 4.

The EPYC 7262 has a launch MSRP of $575, while the Xeon Gold 6334 has no launch MSRP listed in the data. Release dates also differ, with the EPYC 7262 launching on August 6, 2019, and the Xeon Gold 6334 on April 5, 2021. Both processors are currently marked as Active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 7262 has a part number (100-000000041), while the Xeon Gold 6334 does not have one listed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6334 has a higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz, compared to 3.40 GHz for the AMD EPYC 7262. The base clock is also higher for Intel at 3.60 GHz versus 3.20 GHz.

Q: How much more L3 cache does the AMD EPYC 7262 have?

A: The EPYC 7262 has a total of 128 MB of L3 cache (32 MB per die), while the Xeon Gold 6334 has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a substantial difference favoring AMD.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7262 and Intel Xeon Gold 6334 support eight-channel DDR4 memory with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, and both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor provides more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 7262 provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6334 provides 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The EPYC 7262 offers double the lane count.

Q: What is the benchmark score difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 7262 scores 17662, while the Xeon Gold 6334 scores 17435, giving AMD a 1.3% lead. The EPYC 7262 also wins single-core R23 by 1.3% (2493 vs 2461).

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The AMD EPYC 7262 has a TDP of 155 W, which is lower than the Intel Xeon Gold 6334's 165 W TDP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7262 outperforms the Intel Xeon Gold 6334 in every single benchmark recorded, from Cinebench R15 to R23, in both single-core and multi-core tests. The margins range from 1.3% to 1.6%, which is not a dramatic difference, but it is a consistent one. The EPYC 7262's 128 MB of L3 cache versus 18 MB for the Xeon Gold 6334 is the most likely explanation for this advantage, especially in multi-threaded rendering tasks. Its lower TDP of 155 W versus 165 W also makes it the more efficient choice.

For server builders, the EPYC 7262's 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes are a major practical advantage over the Xeon Gold 6334's 64 lanes, enabling more expansion options for GPUs, storage, and networking. The fact that the EPYC 7262 also has a listed launch MSRP of $575 (the Xeon Gold 6334 has none listed) reinforces its position as the stronger overall package. The only reason to select the Xeon Gold 6334 would be if the Intel platform, socket 4189, or its higher clock speeds are required for legacy compatibility or specific software optimizations, but the benchmark data does not show any performance benefit from those clocks.

Choose the AMD EPYC 7262 if you want the faster processor in all measured Cinebench workloads, better cache capacity, double the PCIe lanes, and lower power draw. Choose the Intel Xeon Gold 6334 only if you are locked into an Intel Socket 4189 platform or need the slightly higher base and boost clocks for reasons not captured by rendering benchmarks. The performance gap is small, but it is entirely in AMD's favor, making the EPYC 7262 the data-driven recommendation for most server and workstation use cases.