AMD EPYC 7301 vs Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7301 and Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 are two server processors from different eras, with the EPYC built on a modern 14nm Zen design and the Xeon based on the older 22nm Haswell architecture. While both target server and workstation workloads, benchmark data shows the EPYC 7301 consistently edges out the Xeon in every tested Cinebench scenario, though the margins are remarkably slim. The EPYC 7301 holds a 56th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Xeon E5-1681 v3 sits at the 55th percentile, placing them nearly neck-and-neck in overall performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads. This gives the EPYC a 60% advantage in core count and thread count.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The EPYC 7301 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 2.70 GHz. The Xeon E5-1681 v3 runs at a higher 2.90 GHz base clock and 3.50 GHz boost clock, giving it a substantial frequency advantage.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core benchmarks?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7301 scores 12,742 versus the Xeon's 12,597, a 1.2% advantage for AMD. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar 1.2% lead, with scores of 5,351 and 5,290 respectively.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to the Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3's 25 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's cache is more than twice as large.

Q: How does memory bandwidth differ between the two?

A: The EPYC 7301 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, while the Xeon E5-1681 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC offers roughly 2.5 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: What are the production statuses of these processors?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 is listed as Active in production, while the Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 is marked as End-of-life.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows the AMD EPYC 7301 winning all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, yet the margins are consistently narrow—never exceeding 1.2%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 12,742 against the Xeon's 12,597, a lead of 145 points. For single-core workloads, the EPYC also prevails, scoring 1,798 versus 1,778 in R23, a 1.1% edge.

The EPYC 7301 is the clear choice for workloads that benefit from its 16 cores versus the Xeon's 10, and its eight-channel memory bus offers 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth compared to 68.3 GB/s on the quad-channel Xeon. The EPYC also has a significantly larger 64 MB L3 cache versus 25 MB on the Intel part.

However, the Xeon E5-1681 v3 is not without merit. Its higher clock speeds—2.90 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost versus 2.20/2.70 GHz on the EPYC—partially compensate for its fewer cores, keeping the performance gap in Cinebench tests surprisingly small. The Xeon also draws less power, with a 135 W TDP versus 170 W for the EPYC.

For new server deployments, the EPYC 7301 is the logical pick given its Active production status, larger core count, and superior memory bandwidth. The Xeon E5-1681 v3, being End-of-life, makes sense primarily for existing platform upgrades where the socket 2011-3 infrastructure is already in place. Neither part dominates dramatically, but the EPYC's architectural advantages in cache and memory throughput give it the edge for memory-intensive and highly threaded workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 7301 records a victory, though the margins tell a story of near parity. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 1,284 against the Xeon's 1,269, a 1.2% win. The single-core R15 test shows a 1.1% lead for AMD, with scores of 181 and 179.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The EPYC's multi-core score of 5,351 beats the Xeon's 5,290 by 1.2%, while the single-core result of 755 versus 746 represents another 1.2% advantage. The largest absolute gap appears in R23 multi-core, where the EPYC scores 12,742 and the Xeon scores 12,597—a 145-point difference that still translates to just 1.2%.

The single-core margins are equally tight. In R23 single-core, the EPYC's 1,798 outperforms the Xeon's 1,778 by 1.1%. This consistency across all tests suggests the EPYC's architectural efficiency—its 14nm Zen design versus the 22nm Haswell—compensates for the Xeon's higher clock speeds.

Notably, the Xeon E5-1681 v3 never wins a single benchmark in this comparison. Yet the data also reveals that the Xeon's higher frequencies keep it competitive despite having 6 fewer cores and 12 fewer threads. The average benchmark score for the EPYC is 3,685, while the Xeon averages 3,643, a difference of just 42 points, or roughly 1%.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is core count: the EPYC 7301 offers 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Xeon E5-1681 v3 provides 10 cores and 20 threads. Clock speeds favor Intel, with the Xeon's 2.90 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost outpacing the EPYC's 2.20 GHz base and 2.70 GHz boost.

Power consumption also diverges, with the EPYC rated at 170 W TDP and the Xeon at 135 W TDP. The EPYC uses 35 W more power but delivers 60% more cores. Manufacturing processes differ substantially: the EPYC is built on a 14nm node by GlobalFoundries, while the Xeon uses Intel's 22nm process.

Cache hierarchies show the EPYC's advantage: it has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 25 MB shared L3. Transistor counts reflect the design differences—the EPYC integrates 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die, while the Xeon packs 2,600 million on a larger 356 mm² die.

Memory support differs significantly. The EPYC features an eight-channel DDR4 memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon is limited to quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The EPYC uses the AMD Socket SP3, while the Xeon fits Intel Socket 2011-3. The EPYC has an unlocked multiplier; the Xeon does not.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7301 is built on AMD's Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, from the EPYC 7001 series. It uses a 14nm process from GlobalFoundries, integrating 4,800 million transistors. The design features 64 MB of shared L3 cache and an eight-channel memory controller, which explains its 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. The EPYC was released on 2017-06-28 and remains in Active production.

The Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, codenamed Haswell-EP, from the Xeon E5 family. It is manufactured on Intel's 22nm process, containing 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. Its 25 MB shared L3 cache and quad-channel memory controller yield 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon launched on 2014-09-07 and is now End-of-life.

The architectural philosophies differ markedly. The EPYC prioritizes core count and memory throughput, with 16 cores and eight-channel memory. The Xeon relies on higher clock speeds—3.50 GHz boost versus 2.70 GHz—and a more modest 10-core configuration. Both support PCIe Gen 3, with the Xeon specifying 40 lanes.

The EPYC's Zen architecture brings a 14nm process that enables higher efficiency per core, while the Xeon's Haswell design, despite being older and on 22nm, compensates with aggressive clock speeds. The L3 cache difference—64 MB versus 25 MB—gives the EPYC a substantial advantage in workloads with large working sets. The EPYC's unlocked multiplier offers additional flexibility, though the Xeon's locked multiplier is typical for server parts.

The generation gap is clear: the EPYC represents AMD's modern server platform with Active status, while the Xeon belongs to an older Intel generation marked as End-of-life. This is reflected in the memory bandwidth figures, where the EPYC's 170.6 GB/s is more than double the Xeon's 68.3 GB/s, a critical factor for memory-bound server applications.