AMD EPYC 7301 vs Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7301 and Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 are remarkably close competitors in raw compute benchmarks, but the data shows a clear, consistent, albeit narrow, victory for the AMD part across every single test. The EPYC 7301 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, with margins ranging from 0.7% to 1.1%. Neither processor holds a significant advantage in single-threaded or multi-threaded workloads; the differences are so small that real-world application performance would be virtually indistinguishable. However, for a database that tracks exact scores, the AMD EPYC 7301 is the definitive benchmark winner, while the Xeon’s only advantages lie in its power envelope and legacy platform characteristics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a picture of near-total parity, with the AMD EPYC 7301 taking a narrow but unanimous victory. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7301 scores 1284 against the Xeon’s 1274, a 0.8% lead. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story, with the EPYC at 181 and the Xeon at 179, giving AMD a 1.1% edge — the largest delta in the entire comparison. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20, where the EPYC 7301 posts a multicore score of 5351 versus 5311 for the Xeon (0.8% lead), and a single-core score of 755 versus 749 (0.8% lead).

The most recent Cinebench R23 tests continue the trend. The EPYC 7301 achieves 12742 in multicore, edging out the Xeon’s 12647 by 0.8%. In R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 1798 against 1785, a 0.7% advantage. Across all six benchmarks, the AMD part wins by an average that hovers just under one percent. The data indicates that the EPYC 7301’s 16 cores and 32 threads provide a slight throughput advantage over the Xeon’s 12 cores and 24 threads, but the Xeon’s higher boost clock of 2.90 GHz versus 2.70 GHz helps it stay competitive in single-threaded tests. The final tally is decisive: 6 wins for the AMD EPYC 7301, 0 wins for the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 has an average benchmark score of 3685, while the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 scores 3658. The EPYC is 0.7% ahead, placing it in the 56th percentile of all CPUs, the same percentile as the Xeon.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The largest multi-core delta is 0.8%, seen in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests. The AMD EPYC 7301 consistently outscores the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 by this margin, translating to a lead of roughly 95 points in R23 multicore.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 records zero wins. The AMD EPYC 7301 wins all six Cinebench tests, including both single-core and multicore variants.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The EPYC 7301’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X, which trails by 0.3% with an average score of 3673. The Xeon’s closest competitor is the Intel Core i9-10885H, which is 0.2% behind with a score of 3651.

Q: What is the difference in their single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 leads in all single-core tests. The margin is 1.1% in Cinebench R15 (181 vs 179), 0.8% in R20 (755 vs 749), and 0.7% in R23 (1798 vs 1785).

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 has a higher boost clock at 2.90 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 7301’s 2.70 GHz. Both have the same base clock of 2.20 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on benchmark results, the AMD EPYC 7301 wins every computational category measured. It is the superior choice for any workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering, whether that is multi-threaded rendering (R15, R20, R23 multicore) or single-threaded tasks (R15, R20, R23 single-core). The data shows a consistent edge, making the EPYC 7301 the default pick for raw processing power.

The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 does not win any performance benchmarks, but its specification sheet reveals areas where it might be preferable from a platform perspective. Its lower TDP of 105 watts versus 170 watts suggests it could be easier to cool and may fit into lower-power server chassis. Additionally, its socket (Intel Socket 2011-3) and quad-channel memory bus represent a different platform ecosystem compared to AMD’s Socket SP3 and eight-channel memory bus. For users with existing Intel 2011-3 infrastructure, the Xeon might be the practical choice, but not the performance choice.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD EPYC 7301 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Their base clocks are identical at 2.20 GHz, but the Intel part boosts higher at 2.90 GHz versus 2.70 GHz. The EPYC 7301 has a significantly higher TDP at 170 watts, compared to the Xeon’s 105 watts.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The EPYC 7301 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, whereas the Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. Cache sizes also differ: the EPYC has 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, plus 64 MB of shared L3; the Xeon has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 30 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7301 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon does not. Production status also differs, with the EPYC listed as “Active” and the Xeon as “End-of-life.” The Xeon E5-2658A v3 has a launch MSRP of $1832; the EPYC 7301 has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

These processors represent two fundamentally different design philosophies and generations. The AMD EPYC 7301 is built on the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, using a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 uses the older Haswell architecture, codenamed Haswell-EP, on a 22 nm process at Intel. It packs 2,600 million transistors on a much larger 356 mm² die.

The EPYC 7301 is part of the EPYC 7001 series and uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The memory controllers differ fundamentally: the EPYC features an eight-channel memory bus, while the Xeon uses a quad-channel bus. This directly impacts the measured memory bandwidth, where the EPYC’s 170.6 GB/s more than doubles the Xeon’s 68.3 GB/s. Both support DDR4 and ECC memory, and both use PCIe Gen 3, though the Xeon specifies 40 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC’s unlocked multiplier is a feature absent on the Xeon. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the EPYC remains active, and the EPYC’s larger L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB) reflects its newer, more cache-heavy design.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7301 is the faster processor. It wins all six Cinebench tests, with a maximum lead of 1.1% in R15 single-core. For any workload measured by Cinebench, the EPYC 7301 is the correct choice. Its higher core count (16 vs 12), larger cache (64 MB vs 30 MB), and substantially higher memory bandwidth (170.6 GB/s vs 68.3 GB/s) provide the structural advantages that translate into its benchmark wins.

However, the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 still has a role. Its 105-watt TDP is significantly lower than the EPYC’s 170 watts, which could be a deciding factor in dense server deployments where power and cooling are constrained. Its higher boost clock of 2.90 GHz also narrows the single-core gap to under one percent in most tests. For users already invested in the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, the Xeon offers a path to upgrade without changing motherboards, and its end-of-life status may make it available at a lower cost in the secondary market.

The data suggests a clear split: choose the AMD EPYC 7301 for maximum multi-threaded throughput and memory bandwidth, especially in new builds. Choose the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 only if platform compatibility or power efficiency are the primary concerns, as its performance is nearly identical but marginally behind. The EPYC 7301’s six-win sweep and higher average score of 3685 versus 3658 make it the benchmark champion, but the Xeon’s lower power draw and legacy socket ensure it remains a viable alternative. Neither processor offers a decisive performance advantage; the choice hinges on platform and power priorities.