AMD EPYC 7301 vs Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7301 across all six Cinebench comparisons. In the multicore tests, the EPYC 7301 posts 1284 against the Xeon E5-2678 v3’s 1257 in Cinebench R15, a 2.1% margin. The R20 multicore run repeats the pattern: 5351 versus 5239, again a 2.1% lead. The R23 multicore result is 12742 against 12474, with the same 2.1% delta. These margins are consistent, not outliers, suggesting a stable performance advantage that scales across workload generations.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though the differences are slightly larger in percentage terms. The EPYC 7301 scores 181 versus 177 in R15 single-core, a 2.3% gap. In R20 single-core, the numbers are 755 and 739, a 2.2% delta. The R23 single-core run shows 1798 against 1761, a 2.1% difference. The fact that the single-core deltas are at or above the multicore deltas indicates that the EPYC 7301’s per-thread efficiency is not the limiting factor; the advantage holds even when only one core is active.

The overall benchmark averages reflect this narrow but decisive edge. The EPYC 7301 has an average benchmark score of 3685, while the Xeon E5-2678 v3 sits at 3608. That is a 2.1% gap in the aggregate, matching the head-to-head deltas. In percentile terms, the EPYC 7301 ranks at the 56th percentile among all CPUs, while the Xeon E5-2678 v3 ranks at the 55th. Both are mid-pack processors, but the EPYC consistently sits one percentile higher.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each processor clarifies the competitive landscape. The EPYC 7301’s closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X with an average score of 3673, a 0.3% delta in favor of the EPYC. The AMD EPYC 7251 trails at 3671, a 0.4% gap. The Intel Core i3-13100E is next at 3668, a 0.5% delta. The only rival that beats the EPYC 7301 in this group is the Intel Core i9-10980HK at 3706, a -0.6% delta. For the Xeon E5-2678 v3, the closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 2700E at 3603, a 0.1% delta in favor of the Xeon. The Intel Xeon E-2286G scores 3610, a -0.1% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 also scores 3613, a -0.1% delta. The Intel Xeon E-2276G leads that pack at 3614, a -0.2% delta. These numbers place both processors in a tightly contested mid-range segment, but the EPYC 7301 edges ahead in every direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from fundamentally different design eras. The AMD EPYC 7301 is built on the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, using a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, codenamed Haswell-EP, on Intel’s 22 nm process. This node difference is significant: the smaller 14 nm process allows AMD to pack 4,800 million transistors into a 213 mm² die, while Intel’s 22 nm process fits 2,600 million transistors into a larger 356 mm² die. The transistor density is roughly twice as high on the AMD chip, which partially explains its efficiency despite a higher TDP.

Core counts differ as well. The EPYC 7301 provides 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Xeon E5-2678 v3 offers 12 cores and 24 threads. That is a 33% advantage in core count for the AMD part, yet the performance delta is only about 2% in Cinebench. The Xeon compensates with higher clock speeds: its base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost of 3.30 GHz, versus the EPYC’s 2.20 GHz base and 2.70 GHz boost. The Xeon’s boost clock is 0.60 GHz higher, which narrows the gap in lightly threaded workloads.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The EPYC 7301 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 64 MB L3 cache. The Xeon E5-2678 v3 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 30 MB L3 cache. The EPYC’s L3 is more than double the Xeon’s, which can benefit workloads with large working sets. However, the Xeon’s smaller cache is paired with a higher clock, so the tradeoff is not one-sided.

Memory subsystems are a major differentiator. The EPYC 7301 supports DDR4 only, with an eight-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The Xeon E5-2678 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, but only with a quad-channel bus, yielding 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC’s bandwidth is 2.5 times higher, a decisive factor for memory-bound server workloads. Both support ECC memory, which is expected in this segment.

The sockets and platforms are incompatible. The EPYC 7301 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Xeon E5-2678 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The EPYC has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Xeon is locked. PCIe support is Gen 3 on both, but the Xeon specifies 40 lanes from the CPU only, while the EPYC’s lane count is not specified in the data. The Xeon is marked end-of-life in production status, while the EPYC 7301 remains active. The Xeon’s release date is not recorded, but the EPYC 7301 launched on 2017-06-28.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7301 wins every recorded Cinebench test, but the margins are small enough that the Xeon E5-2678 v3 remains competitive in specific contexts. The EPYC’s strengths are clearest in multicore rendering and memory-intensive tasks. Its 16 cores and 32 threads give it a structural advantage in workloads that scale with thread count, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific simulations. The 64 MB L3 cache and 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth support these workloads by reducing cache misses and feeding data to cores faster. In the R23 multicore test, the EPYC’s 12742 score versus 12474 shows that it can sustain a lead even as the workload stresses the memory subsystem.

The Xeon E5-2678 v3, despite losing all head-to-head tests, has its own niche. Its higher base and boost clocks (2.50 GHz and 3.30 GHz versus 2.20 GHz and 2.70 GHz) make it more responsive in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks, where the EPYC’s lower clock could be a liability. Its 120 W TDP is significantly lower than the EPYC’s 170 W, which means it generates less heat and may be easier to cool in dense server chassis. The Xeon also supports DDR3 memory in addition to DDR4, offering flexibility for systems with existing DDR3 infrastructure, though at a bandwidth cost.

The single-core results highlight this split. The EPYC wins the R15 single-core test by 2.3% (181 versus 177), but the Xeon’s boost clock advantage of 0.60 GHz suggests that in real-world single-threaded applications not captured by Cinebench, the Xeon could close or reverse that gap. The data does not include such tests, so the EPYC’s single-core win is recorded but not necessarily universal.

For memory bandwidth, the EPYC 7301 is the clear winner. With 170.6 GB/s versus 68.3 GB/s, the EPYC has a 2.5 times bandwidth advantage. This is not directly benchmarked in the head-to-head tests, but it informs the multicore results: the EPYC’s 16 cores can access data at a much higher rate, which is why its multicore lead, while modest, is consistent across R15, R20, and R23.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD EPYC 7301 is the superior processor for Cinebench workloads. It wins all six head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score (3685 versus 3608), and ranks one percentile higher among all CPUs (56th versus 55th). The margins are narrow, never exceeding 2.3%, but they are uniform across single-core and multicore tests. This indicates that the EPYC 7301 does not sacrifice single-threaded performance to achieve its multicore lead; it simply does both slightly better.

The Xeon E5-2678 v3 is not a poor performer. Its average score of 3608 places it within 2.1% of the EPYC, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.2% of its score, showing that it is well matched against contemporary mid-range CPUs. Its lower TDP of 120 W versus 170 W makes it a more power-efficient choice for dense deployments, and its support for DDR3 and DDR4 memory provides upgrade flexibility. The Xeon’s higher boost clock could benefit specific single-threaded tasks, but the recorded Cinebench data does not show that advantage materializing.

For buyers deciding between these two, the choice depends on workload priorities. If the primary tasks are multithreaded rendering, data processing, or memory-bandwidth-intensive applications, the EPYC 7301 is the data-backed pick. Its 16 cores, 64 MB L3, and 170.6 GB/s bandwidth provide a foundation that the Xeon cannot match. If the system must operate in a power-constrained environment or reuse existing DDR3 memory, the Xeon E5-2678 v3 offers a viable alternative, but it will lag in every Cinebench metric recorded. The EPYC 7301 is the winner in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance difference between the two in any benchmark?

A: The largest delta is 2.3%, recorded in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where the EPYC 7301 scores 181 versus the Xeon’s 177.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The EPYC 7301 has a memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s with an eight-channel bus, while the Xeon E5-2678 v3 has 68.3 GB/s with a quad-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3 has a boost clock of 3.30 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 7301’s 2.70 GHz.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between them?

A: The EPYC 7301 averages 3685, while the Xeon E5-2678 v3 averages 3608, a difference of 77 points in favor of the EPYC.

Q: Which processor is marked as end-of-life?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3 has a production status of end-of-life, while the AMD EPYC 7301 is listed as active.