CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 and AMD EPYC 7301 are both 2017-era server processors aimed at the same dual-socket market segment, but they approach the workload from different design philosophies. The Xeon Silver 4116 relies on higher clock speeds with fewer cores, while the EPYC 7301 counters with a substantial core and cache advantage. Benchmark data from the Cinebench suite shows that the Intel part wins every single head-to-head test, though the margins are consistently narrow, never exceeding 1.3%. The EPYC 7301’s higher core count does not translate into a multi-core victory in these tests, making the Xeon Silver 4116 the more effective performer across the board, even if the differences are slight.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably uniform. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Intel Xeon Silver 4116 claims victory, with the EPYC 7301 never managing a single win. The deltas are tight, ranging from 1.1% to 1.3%, indicating that the two processors are closely matched in raw rendering performance despite their architectural differences.

In the multi-core tests, the Xeon Silver 4116 posts a score of 1301 in Cinebench R15, edging out the EPYC 7301’s 1284 by 1.3%. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R20, where the Intel part scores 5421 against 5351 for the AMD chip, again a 1.3% margin. The largest absolute gap shows up in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon Silver 4116 reaches 12908 versus the EPYC 7301’s 12742, with the same 1.3% delta. These results are notable because the EPYC 7301 has 16 cores and 32 threads, compared to the Xeon Silver 4116’s 12 cores and 24 threads. A 33% core-count advantage would normally suggest a clear multi-core lead, but the benchmark data shows the opposite, with the Intel processor consistently ahead.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though the margins are slightly smaller in one instance. The Xeon Silver 4116 scores 183 in Cinebench R15 single-core, beating the EPYC 7301’s 181 by 1.1%. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel part scores 765 against 755, a 1.3% lead. The final test, Cinebench R23 single-core, shows the Xeon Silver 4116 at 1822 and the EPYC 7301 at 1798, again a 1.3% difference. The consistent 1.3% delta across most tests suggests a fixed clock-speed advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly. The Xeon Silver 4116 boosts to 3.00 GHz, while the EPYC 7301 tops out at 2.70 GHz, and this 0.30 GHz gap appears to drive the consistent single-core edge.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The Xeon Silver 4116 averages 3733 across all tests, while the EPYC 7301 averages 3685, a difference of 48 points. In the context of the nearest rivals listed in the data, the Xeon Silver 4116 sits within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650GE and 0.2% behind the Intel Core i5-11600T, while the EPYC 7301 is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X and 0.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7251. Both processors land in the 56th percentile of all CPUs, indicating they occupy a similar tier of overall performance, despite the Xeon Silver 4116’s sweep of the head-to-head tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 wins every multi-core test. It scores 1301 in R15, 5421 in R20, and 12908 in R23, compared to the AMD EPYC 7301’s 1284, 5351, and 12742 respectively. The margin is 1.3% in each case.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7301 have a core-count advantage?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7301 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon Silver 4116 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Despite this, the EPYC 7301 loses all multi-core benchmarks to the Xeon Silver 4116.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The Xeon Silver 4116 leads in all single-core tests. It scores 183 in R15, 765 in R20, and 1822 in R23, versus the EPYC 7301’s 181, 755, and 1798. The deltas are 1.1% in R15 and 1.3% in R20 and R23.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon Silver 4116 has an average benchmark score of 3733, while the EPYC 7301 averages 3685. Both processors rank in the 56th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the clock speed difference between the two?

A: The Xeon Silver 4116 has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The EPYC 7301 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 2.70 GHz.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon Silver 4116 has 16.5 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7301’s cache is nearly four times larger.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 uses the Skylake-SP architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. It packs 8,000 million transistors into the die. The AMD EPYC 7301 uses the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by GlobalFoundries. The EPYC 7301 contains 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die, which is smaller than the Intel chip’s unspecified die size but with fewer transistors.

Cache layouts differ sharply. The Xeon Silver 4116 allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with a 16.5 MB shared L3 pool. The EPYC 7301 provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, but compensates with a much larger 64 MB shared L3 cache. This fourfold L3 advantage could benefit workloads that repeatedly access large datasets, though the benchmark results do not show a corresponding multi-core performance gain.

Memory support also diverges. Both support DDR4 and ECC memory, but the EPYC 7301 features an eight-channel memory bus with a rated bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, while the Xeon Silver 4116 does not specify a memory bus width or bandwidth figure in the data. The EPYC 7301 also lists PCIe Gen 3 support, whereas the Xeon Silver 4116 does not have a PCIe specification listed. The EPYC 7301 has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, while the Xeon Silver 4116 is locked. Both are marked as Server/Workstation parts, but the EPYC 7301 is listed as having an active production status, while the Xeon Silver 4116 does not have a production status field.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious split. The Xeon Silver 4116 offers 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC 7301 doubles the core count to 16 and the thread count to 32. Clock speeds favor Intel, with the Xeon Silver 4116 boosting to 3.00 GHz versus the EPYC 7301’s 2.70 GHz, though the EPYC 7301 has a higher base clock at 2.20 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The Xeon Silver 4116 has a TDP of 85 watts, while the EPYC 7301 consumes 170 watts, exactly double. This makes the Intel part far more power-efficient on paper, though no wattage figures are available for comparison beyond these TDP ratings. The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon Silver 4116 uses Intel Socket 3647, while the EPYC 7301 uses AMD Socket SP3.

Transistor count and die size differ as well. The Xeon Silver 4116 integrates 8,000 million transistors, while the EPYC 7301 has 4,800 million. The EPYC 7301’s die size is listed at 213 mm², while the Xeon Silver 4116 does not specify a die size. Cache configuration also differs, with the EPYC 7301 offering 96 KB L1 per core versus 64 KB for the Intel part, but the Intel part has 1 MB L2 per core versus 512 KB for the AMD chip. The L3 cache is the largest discrepancy, with the EPYC 7301’s 64 MB dwarfing the Xeon Silver 4116’s 16.5 MB.

The EPYC 7301 lists an eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the Xeon Silver 4116 has no memory bus or bandwidth data. The EPYC 7301 also has PCIe Gen 3 support and an unlocked multiplier; the Xeon Silver 4116 has neither. Both support DDR4 and ECC memory. The EPYC 7301 was released on 2017-06-28, while the Xeon Silver 4116 followed on 2017-07-10.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, making it the clear choice for Cinebench rendering workloads. Its highest margins come in multi-core tests, where it maintains a 1.3% lead over the EPYC 7301 despite having four fewer cores. The single-core advantage is also present, with a 1.1% to 1.3% edge depending on the test version. For workloads that are sensitive to clock speed, the Xeon Silver 4116’s 3.00 GHz boost clock provides a measurable benefit over the EPYC 7301’s 2.70 GHz. Its 85 watt TDP also makes it more suitable for power-constrained environments, though no performance-per-watt metrics are available in the data.

The AMD EPYC 7301 does not win any of the six head-to-head benchmarks, but it holds advantages in other areas. Its 16 cores and 32 threads represent a raw parallel-computing resource that the Xeon Silver 4116 cannot match, even if the Cinebench results do not reflect a performance win. The 64 MB L3 cache is four times larger than the Intel chip’s, which could benefit cache-heavy workloads beyond the tested Cinebench suite. The eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s bandwidth are also superior specs for memory-bound applications, though no corresponding benchmark data is available. The unlocked multiplier offers overclocking flexibility that the locked Xeon Silver 4116 lacks.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon Silver 4116 is the better performer in the tested Cinebench workloads, winning all six head-to-head comparisons with deltas of 1.1% to 1.3%. Its higher boost clock of 3.00 GHz gives it a consistent edge in both single-core and multi-core tests, even against a processor with 33% more cores. The EPYC 7301’s 16-core configuration and 64 MB L3 cache are impressive on paper, but the benchmark results show that this does not translate into a practical win in rendering tasks.

For buyers prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering performance and lower power consumption, the Xeon Silver 4116 is the data-backed choice. Its 85 watt TDP is half the EPYC 7301’s 170 watts, and its average benchmark score of 3733 exceeds the EPYC 7301’s 3685. The EPYC 7301 may appeal to those who value its eight-channel memory bandwidth, larger L3 cache, or unlocked multiplier, but the benchmark data does not support a performance advantage in the tested scenarios. Both processors sit in the 56th percentile of all CPUs, placing them in the same overall performance tier, but the Xeon Silver 4116’s sweep of the head-to-head tests makes it the winner for anyone relying on Cinebench scores to guide a purchasing decision.