AMD EPYC 7302 vs Intel Xeon Gold 5318N Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded Cinebench data presents a remarkably consistent picture between these two server processors. Across all six benchmark runs, the Intel Xeon Gold 5318N holds the advantage in every single test, though the margins are narrow and uniform. The largest observed gap is a 3.6 percent edge in multi-core workloads, while single-core results show a similar pattern with the Intel part leading by 3.5 to 3.6 percent depending on the test version.

Looking at the multi-core numbers first, the Cinebench R15 test shows the Intel Xeon Gold 5318N scoring 2938 against 2836 for the AMD EPYC 7302, a 3.6 percent difference. The Cinebench R20 multi-core run repeats that exact delta: 12245 versus 11818, again a 3.6 percent advantage for Intel. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result follows the same trajectory, with the Intel chip posting 29155 and the AMD chip finishing at 28140, maintaining that identical 3.6 percent margin. This consistency across three generations of the Cinebench workload suggests the performance relationship between these two processors is stable and not dependent on the specific benchmark version.

Single-core results tell much the same story, although the deltas are slightly more varied. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Intel Xeon Gold 5318N scores 414 against 400 for the EPYC 7302, a 3.5 percent lead. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows 1728 versus 1668, returning to the 3.6 percent margin seen in the multi-core tests. Cinebench R23 single-core completes the pattern with 4116 against 3972, again a 3.6 percent advantage for the Intel part. The Intel processor wins all six head-to-head matchups, with no benchmark where the AMD EPYC 7302 takes the lead.

The average benchmark score in the database further contextualizes these results. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N carries an average benchmark score of 8433, while the AMD EPYC 7302 sits at 8139. That places the Intel part roughly 3.6 percent ahead on the composite metric, matching the per-test deltas closely. Both processors land at the 64th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same overall performance tier despite the Intel chip's consistent edge in these specific tests.

Context from the nearest rival listings helps anchor these scores. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N's average score of 8433 puts it just 0.3 percent above the Intel Core i7-8550U at 8407, and 1.1 percent above the Intel Core i5-10210U at 8344. The nearest rival on the other side is the Intel Pentium Gold G7400 at 8515, which sits 1 percent above the Xeon Gold 5318N. For the AMD EPYC 7302, the average score of 8139 places it 0.1 percent below the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y at 8147, and 0.2 percent above the Intel Core i3-8100 at 8123. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M at 8110 trails by 0.4 percent, and the Intel Xeon Gold 6326 at 8071 is 0.8 percent behind.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N wins all six recorded Cinebench tests. It takes the multi-core and single-core variants of R15, R20, and R23, leaving the AMD EPYC 7302 with zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

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

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N leads by exactly 3.6 percent in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. The scores are 2938 versus 2836, 12245 versus 11818, and 29155 versus 28140 respectively.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7302 have any single-core advantage?

A: No. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N wins all three single-core tests. The margins are 3.5 percent in Cinebench R15 (414 versus 400) and 3.6 percent in both R20 (1728 versus 1668) and R23 (4116 versus 3972).

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

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N's average score of 8433 is 0.3 percent above the Intel Core i7-8550U and 1.1 percent above the Intel Core i5-10210U, while the Intel Pentium Gold G7400 sits 1 percent higher. The AMD EPYC 7302's average of 8139 is 0.1 percent below the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y and 0.2 percent above the Intel Core i3-8100.

Q: What do the percentile rankings indicate?

A: Both processors hold a 64th percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database. This means they occupy the same overall performance tier, even though the Intel part consistently outscores the AMD chip in every recorded benchmark.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N has an average benchmark score of 8433, compared to 8139 for the AMD EPYC 7302. The difference works out to roughly 3.6 percent, consistent with the individual test deltas.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data does not offer much room for a use-case split based on performance, because the Intel Xeon Gold 5318N wins every recorded test. Multi-core workloads show the Intel part ahead by 3.6 percent across all three Cinebench versions, which matters for heavily threaded server workloads such as compilation, rendering, or database processing. The Intel chip's 24 cores and 48 threads provide the computational foundation for that edge, and the consistent multi-core margins suggest a modest but real throughput advantage in parallel tasks.

Single-core workloads similarly favor the Intel Xeon Gold 5318N, with a 3.5 to 3.6 percent lead depending on the test. This matters for lightly threaded applications, latency-sensitive transactions, or workloads that depend on per-core performance rather than raw core counts. The Intel chip's boost clock of 3.40 GHz against 3.30 GHz for the AMD part likely contributes to this consistent single-core advantage, and the recorded data shows the Intel part leading in every single-core iteration.

That said, the AMD EPYC 7302 does have attributes that could make it the preferable choice in certain configurations, even if those attributes do not show up in the Cinebench results. The AMD processor offers 128 MB of total L3 cache, spread across four dies at 32 MB per die, which can benefit workloads with large working sets that fit in cache. The EPYC 7302 also provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, double the 64 lanes available on the Intel Xeon Gold 5318N. For systems requiring extensive I/O connectivity, such as many NVMe drives or high-bandwidth accelerators, that lane count difference could outweigh the modest Cinebench deficit.

The AMD part also draws slightly more power on paper, with a TDP of 155 watts against 150 watts for the Intel chip, but that small difference is unlikely to drive a purchasing decision on its own. The EPYC 7302 runs at a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz versus 2.10 GHz for the Intel part, which may help in steady-state workloads that do not boost frequently. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N, meanwhile, has a higher boost clock at 3.40 GHz, which helps explain its single-core benchmark wins.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several core specifications. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N packs 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7302 offers 16 cores and 32 threads. That is a 50 percent core advantage for Intel, yet the multi-core benchmark lead is only 3.6 percent, indicating that the AMD architecture extracts more performance per core in threaded workloads.

Base clocks differ substantially. The AMD EPYC 7302 runs at 3.00 GHz base, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318N sits at 2.10 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with Intel at 3.40 GHz and AMD at 3.30 GHz. The higher base clock on the AMD part may reflect a different power and frequency management strategy, while the Intel part relies on a larger core count to close the gap.

Thermal design power is nearly identical: 150 watts for the Intel chip and 155 watts for the AMD chip. The socket platforms differ completely, with the Intel part using Socket 4189 and the AMD part using Socket SP3. Memory support is DDR4 for both, and both use eight-channel memory buses, but the rated memory bandwidth differs. The AMD EPYC 7302 lists 204.8 GB/s, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318N lists 170.7 GB/s, a 20 percent advantage for AMD in theoretical memory throughput.

PCIe connectivity also differs sharply. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N provides Gen 4 with 64 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD EPYC 7302 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes. Both support ECC memory, and neither includes integrated graphics. The release dates are about 20 months apart, with the AMD part launching in August 2019 and the Intel part arriving in April 2021.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two processors is significant. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N is built on Ice Lake-SP, which uses the Ice Lake architecture and a 10 nm process node from Intel. The AMD EPYC 7302 belongs to the EPYC 7002 series and uses Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename, fabricated on a 7 nm process node by TSMC. The smaller process node gives AMD a transistor density advantage, and the EPYC 7302 lists 15,200 million transistors across a die size of 4x 74 mm², while the Intel part does not report transistor count or die size in the database.

Cache hierarchies also differ. Both parts have 64 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 1 MB per core on the Intel chip versus 512 KB per core on the AMD chip, giving Intel a per-core L2 advantage. The L3 configuration is more complex. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 7302 has 32 MB per die for a total of 128 MB across four dies. That total L3 capacity strongly favors AMD, offering nearly 3.6 times more aggregate L3 cache, which can be crucial for certain database or virtualization workloads.

The memory controllers differ in bandwidth as noted, with AMD claiming 204.8 GB/s against Intel's 170.7 GB/s. Both support DDR4 and eight-channel configurations, but the AMD platform's higher rated bandwidth may stem from the multi-die design and memory controller placement. PCIe generation is Gen 4 for both, but lane counts differ at 64 for Intel and 128 for AMD, reflecting a different I/O philosophy. The AMD part also has a higher base clock, which may be a function of the smaller process node and different power delivery design.