CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7281 and Intel Xeon E-2378G present a fascinating study in divergent design philosophies. The EPYC 7281 is a 16-core, 32-thread server processor built on AMD’s Zen architecture with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 2.70 GHz. The Xeon E-2378G is an 8-core, 16-thread part from Intel’s Rocket Lake-E family, which compensates for its lower core count with a much higher 2.80 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost clock. Despite the Xeon’s massive clock advantage, the benchmark data reveals a different story: the AMD part wins every single head-to-head test, albeit by a narrow margin. This outcome hinges on the EPYC’s doubling of cores and threads, which allows it to overcome the Xeon’s superior per-core frequency. The data suggests that raw thread count is the dominant variable in these specific Cinebench workloads, even when the competing chip has a clock speed advantage of over 2 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent, with the AMD EPYC 7281 winning all six Cinebench tests, but the margins are surprisingly tight given the architectural differences. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the EPYC scores 1852 against the Xeon’s 1811, a delta of 2.3%. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern: the EPYC wins with 261 versus 255, a 2.4% advantage. This is counterintuitive at first glance. The Xeon E-2378G has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, nearly double the EPYC’s 2.70 GHz boost, yet it still loses in a test that is traditionally sensitive to single-thread performance. The data implies that the Zen architecture’s efficiency per clock cycle, combined with the EPYC’s larger 96 KB L1 cache per core versus the Xeon’s 80 KB, is enough to offset the frequency deficit.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The EPYC 7281 posts a multicore score of 7718 versus 7549 for the Xeon, a 2.2% delta. The single-core R20 result is 1089 for AMD and 1065 for Intel, another 2.3% win for the EPYC. The consistency of these margins, all hovering between 2.2% and 2.4%, suggests a systemic advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. It is not that the EPYC is dramatically better in any one area; rather, it is slightly better across the board. The Cinebench R23 results reinforce this narrative. The EPYC leads in multicore with 18377 versus 17974, and in single-core with 2594 versus 2537, both showing a 2.2% delta. The fact that the EPYC wins the single-core tests is the most telling statistic, as it suggests that the Xeon’s 5.10 GHz boost clock is not translating into real-world performance gains in this benchmark suite.

The data also shows that the EPYC 7281 has a higher average benchmark score of 5315 compared to the Xeon’s 5199. Both processors sit at the 60th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are in the same performance tier overall. However, the EPYC’s nearest rivals list includes the Intel Core i9-10900KF with an average score of 5316 and a delta of 0%, while the Xeon’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-13400T with 5210 and a -0.2% delta. This contextualizes the head-to-head results: the EPYC is performing at the level of a high-end desktop i9, while the Xeon is closer to a mid-range i5. The wins are narrow, but they are consistent and unambiguous, with the AMD part taking all 6 head-to-head matchups.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 7281 wins every available test, meaning there is no test category where the Xeon E-2378G comes out ahead. The EPYC’s victories span both multicore and single-core workloads, which suggests it is the more capable processor for Cinebench rendering tasks regardless of thread utilization. The multicore wins are expected given the 16-core/32-thread configuration versus 8-core/16-threads, but the single-core wins are more surprising. The EPYC’s single-core scores of 261, 1089, and 2594 in R15, R20, and R23 respectively are all higher than the Xeon’s 255, 1065, and 2537. This indicates that for any workload that relies on a single thread, the EPYC still holds a slight edge, likely due to architectural efficiency.

For use-case analysis, the data implies that the EPYC 7281 is the better choice for any scenario where Cinebench performance is representative, such as 3D rendering, visual effects, or other CPU-intensive creative workloads. The Xeon E-2378G, despite its higher clock speeds, does not win a single benchmark, so there is no performance-based argument for choosing it based on this data. However, the fact that the Xeon has integrated graphics (UHD Graphics P750) while the EPYC has none is a qualitative difference that is not reflected in the Cinebench scores. This means the Xeon could be preferable for a system that needs a display output without a discrete GPU, but that is a feature consideration, not a performance one. The EPYC’s advantage in memory bandwidth, 170.6 GB/s from eight-channel DDR4 versus 51.2 GB/s from dual-channel, is also not directly tested here, but it suggests the EPYC would be superior in memory-intensive tasks beyond Cinebench.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD EPYC 7281 is the superior processor in every benchmark test included in this comparison. It wins all six head-to-head matchups with deltas ranging from 2.2% to 2.4%. For a user prioritizing raw Cinebench performance, the EPYC 7281 is the only choice based on these numbers. Its 16 cores and 32 threads provide a solid foundation for heavily threaded workloads, and its surprising single-core wins indicate that it is no slouch in lightly threaded tasks either. The Xeon E-2378G, despite its 5.10 GHz boost clock and lower 80 W TDP (versus the EPYC’s 170 W), simply cannot match the EPYC’s output in these tests.

However, the verdict is not entirely one-sided when considering the full picture. The Xeon E-2378G has a launch MSRP of $494, which is a specific data point that may factor into purchasing decisions, though pricing analysis is outside the scope of this benchmark review. The Xeon also offers integrated graphics, which the EPYC lacks, making it a more self-contained solution for basic server or workstation tasks. The EPYC’s eight-channel memory bus and higher memory bandwidth (170.6 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s) are significant advantages for data-heavy workloads, but these are not reflected in the Cinebench scores. Ultimately, for pure CPU compute as measured by Cinebench, the EPYC 7281 is the winner. The Xeon E-2378G is a capable processor in its own right, but the data shows it is consistently behind, albeit by a small margin.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7281 has an average benchmark score of 5315, while the Intel Xeon E-2378G has an average score of 5199.

Q: What is the largest margin of victory in the head-to-head tests?

A: The largest margin is 2.4%, achieved by the AMD EPYC 7281 in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where it scored 261 against the Xeon’s 255.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E-2378G win any benchmark tests?

A: No, the Intel Xeon E-2378G wins zero out of six head-to-head benchmark tests. The AMD EPYC 7281 wins all six.

Q: How do the core counts differ between the two processors?

A: The AMD EPYC 7281 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon E-2378G has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 7281 has a memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s via an eight-channel memory bus, whereas the Intel Xeon E-2378G has 51.2 GB/s via a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2378G has a significantly higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 7281’s 2.70 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras and philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7281 is based on the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, and is part of the EPYC 7001 series. It is built on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E-2378G uses the Rocket Lake architecture, codenamed Rocket Lake-E, and is part of the Xeon E-2300 series. It is also built on a 14 nm process, but by Intel, with a larger die size of 276 mm². The EPYC’s cache hierarchy includes 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has 80 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a smaller 16 MB of shared L3 cache.

The memory architectures are starkly different. The EPYC 7281 supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, delivering 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Xeon E-2378G supports DDR4 over a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s. This is a 3.3x difference in theoretical memory bandwidth that could be critical for certain workloads. Additionally, the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3 and has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1200 and has a locked multiplier. The Xeon includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics P750, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The Xeon also has PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC has PCIe Gen 3. The EPYC’s generation is listed as EPYC (Zen (Naples)), and the Xeon’s is Xeon E (Rocket Lake-E), reflecting their respective product families.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals significant differences in core architecture and physical characteristics. The AMD EPYC 7281 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon E-2378G has 8 cores and 16 threads. The base clock speeds are 2.10 GHz for the EPYC and 2.80 GHz for the Xeon, but the boost clocks diverge sharply: 2.70 GHz for the EPYC versus 5.10 GHz for the Xeon. The thermal design power (TDP) also differs, with the EPYC rated at 170 W and the Xeon at a much lower 80 W. The EPYC’s socket is AMD Socket SP3, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1200. The process node is the same (14 nm), but the die sizes differ: 213 mm² for the EPYC and 276 mm² for the Xeon.

Cache configurations vary notably. Both have 512 KB of L2 per core, but the L1 cache differs (96 KB per core for the EPYC versus 80 KB per core for the Xeon), and the L3 cache is larger on the EPYC (32 MB shared versus 16 MB shared). The memory bus width is a major differentiator: the EPYC supports eight-channel memory, while the Xeon supports dual-channel. Consequently, memory bandwidth is 170.6 GB/s for the EPYC versus 51.2 GB/s for the Xeon. The PCIe support differs as well: the EPYC has PCIe Gen 3, while the Xeon has PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are present only on the Xeon (UHD Graphics P750), and the EPYC has none. The launch date for the EPYC is 2017-06-28, while the Xeon launched on 2021-09-07. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $494, while the EPYC’s launch MSRP is not listed. The multiplier is unlocked on the EPYC but locked on the Xeon. The Xeon’s part number is SRKN1, while the EPYC’s is not listed.