AMD EPYC 7301 vs Intel Xeon E-2286M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data paints a strikingly consistent picture: the Intel Xeon E-2286M wins every single head-to-head test against the AMD EPYC 7301, though the margins are remarkably narrow. Across six Cinebench workloads, Intel takes all six victories, with the widest margin appearing in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the Xeon scores 1295 against the EPYC's 1284, a 0.9 percent advantage. That is the largest delta in the entire comparison. The smallest gap comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where Intel posts 182 versus 181 for AMD, a 0.6 percent edge.

The pattern holds across newer renderers. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Xeon E-2286M scores 5396, while the EPYC 7301 trails at 5351, a 0.8 percent lead. Single-core R20 shows the same 0.8 percent gap, with 761 versus 755. Cinebench R23 repeats the formula: Intel leads multicore 12848 to 12742 and single-core 1813 to 1798, both by 0.8 percent. The data shows no test where the EPYC 7301 closes the gap, let alone overtakes its rival.

What makes this notable is the architectural disparity. The EPYC 7301 packs twice as many cores and threads, 16 cores and 32 threads versus the Intel's 8 cores and 16 threads. Yet the EPYC's lower boost clock, 2.70 GHz versus the Intel's 5.00 GHz, appears to negate that core-count advantage in these specific render workloads. The EPYC's multicore scores hover only slightly below Intel, suggesting that its thread count carries it close, but not past, the higher-clocked Intel part. The single-core results are even tighter, reflecting the EPYC's modest 2.20 GHz base and 2.70 GHz boost ceiling.

Geekbench results are only recorded for the Intel side, showing a multicore score of 6746 and a single-core score of 1537. No comparable Geekbench figures exist in the database for the EPYC 7301, so cross-CPU comparison there is impossible. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests places the Xeon at 3822, versus 3685 for the EPYC, a difference of roughly 3.7 percent. Both CPUs sit at the 56th percentile among all processors in the database, meaning they share the same overall standing despite the Xeon's slightly higher average.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E-2286M belongs to the Xeon E-2200 series, built on the Coffee Lake architecture with the Coffee Lake-H codename. It uses a 14 nm process manufactured by Intel, with a die size of 180 mm². The AMD EPYC 7301 is part of the EPYC 7001 series, based on the Zen architecture with the Naples codename. It also uses a 14 nm process, but fabricated by GlobalFoundries, and the die is larger at 213 mm². The EPYC packs 4,800 million transistors, though no transistor count is listed for the Intel part.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Intel Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 16 MB L3 cache. The EPYC 7301 offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a much larger shared 64 MB L3 cache. That fourfold L3 advantage should theoretically benefit the EPYC in data-heavy workloads, yet the benchmark results do not reflect a meaningful edge in the tested render scenarios. The EPYC's larger caches likely help it feed its 16 cores, but the Intel part compensates with a far higher clock ceiling.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Intel Xeon supports dual-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The EPYC 7301 supports eight-channel DDR4, delivering 170.6 GB/s, exactly four times the bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. For memory-bound server workloads, the EPYC's bandwidth is a clear theoretical advantage, but again, the render benchmarks show the Intel part holding a slim lead, suggesting those workloads are not purely bandwidth-limited.

The Intel Xeon integrates UHD Graphics P630, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The Xeon uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket and is marked as end-of-life production status. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3 and remains in active production. The Intel part is not multiplier-unlocked, while the EPYC 7301 is unlocked. PCIe support is Gen 3 on both, though the Intel lists 16 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC simply states Gen 3 without a lane count in the database. The Intel launched in May 2019 with a launch MSRP of $623; the EPYC came earlier, in June 2017, with no launch MSRP recorded.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the Intel Xeon E-2286M wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, the case for choosing it on pure render performance is straightforward. If the workload is Cinebench-style rendering, whether single-core or multicore, the data consistently favors the Intel part. The margins are tiny, but they are uniform. For users who need the absolute fastest results in these specific tests, the Xeon is the pick. Its high 5.00 GHz boost clock also makes it the better choice for lightly threaded tasks where clock speed matters more than core count.

The EPYC 7301, despite losing every head-to-head test, has structural advantages that the benchmarks do not capture. Its 16 cores and 32 threads double the parallel resources of the Intel part. If a workload scales beyond the 16 threads of the Xeon, the EPYC's extra cores could close the gap or reverse it, even if the Cinebench suite does not show that. The EPYC's 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, quadruple the Intel's, is a decisive factor for memory-hungry server applications. The 64 MB L3 cache is also a substantial resource for repeated data access patterns. The EPYC is the more expandable platform: active production status, an unlocked multiplier, and Socket SP3 suggest a longer upgrade path. The Intel is end-of-life, which limits long-term availability.

The EPYC also carries lower single-core performance, 181 versus 182 in R15, but the difference is negligible. For workloads that are not heavily threaded and not memory-bound, the Intel part is clearly superior. For workloads that can exploit 32 threads and eight-channel memory, the EPYC's architecture is designed for that role, even if the recorded Cinebench numbers do not demonstrate a win.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Xeon E-2286M has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Did the EPYC 7301 win any benchmark in the head-to-head tests?

A: No. The Intel Xeon E-2286M won all six recorded Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 0.6 percent to 0.9 percent.

Q: How much larger is the EPYC's L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 7301 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon E-2286M has 16 MB of shared L3 cache, a fourfold difference.

Q: Which CPU supports more memory channels?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory. The Intel Xeon E-2286M supports dual-channel DDR4.

Q: What is the production status of each CPU?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2286M is end-of-life. The AMD EPYC 7301 is in active production.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2286M includes UHD Graphics P630. The AMD EPYC 7301 has no integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E-2286M outperforms the AMD EPYC 7301 in every recorded Cinebench test. The margins are small, but they are consistent across R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multicore modes. If the decision hinges solely on these render scores, the Intel part is the correct choice. It delivers equal or better performance with a fraction of the power envelope, 45 W versus 170 W, and a much smaller die footprint, 180 mm² versus 213 mm².

However, the EPYC 7301 is not without a case. It offers double the cores and threads, four times the memory bandwidth, and four times the L3 cache. For server deployments where those resources are the bottleneck, the EPYC's architecture is purpose-built. The EPYC is also still in active production, while the Intel part is end-of-life. The EPYC's unlocked multiplier adds flexibility for overclocking, though its low boost ceiling of 2.70 GHz limits the headroom.

Who should pick which? Users running lightly threaded tasks, render workloads matching the Cinebench pattern, or needing integrated graphics should choose the Intel Xeon E-2286M. It wins every test in this comparison and does so with far lower power draw. Users building dense multi-threaded servers, relying on massive memory bandwidth, or requiring a platform with ongoing production support should consider the AMD EPYC 7301. The data does not show it winning any benchmark here, but its core count, memory channels, and active status point to strengths outside the measured suite. The verdict from the database: Intel wins this head-to-head, but the EPYC is the more scalable foundation.