AMD EPYC 7302 vs Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a remarkably close contest between the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y and the AMD EPYC 7302. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Intel part wins by a margin of exactly 0.1%, except for a single 0.0% tie in Cinebench R15 single-core. The average benchmark scores tell the same story: the Xeon Gold 5318Y posts an 8147 average, while the EPYC 7302 sits at 8139, a difference of just 0.1%. Both processors occupy the 64th percentile among all CPUs tracked, indicating they deliver nearly identical performance in this benchmark suite.

For a buyer deciding purely on compute capability, the data suggests either chip will deliver virtually indistinguishable results. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the margins are so thin that they fall within typical run-to-run variance. The EPYC 7302's advantage lies elsewhere: it offers 128 MB of total L3 cache versus the Intel's 36 MB, and it provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes compared to Intel's 64 lanes. The AMD part also draws slightly less power at 155 W TDP versus 165 W for Intel. For workloads that depend heavily on cache capacity or need maximum PCIe expansion, the EPYC 7302 becomes the more compelling option despite losing every benchmark in this comparison. The Xeon Gold 5318Y counters with more cores (24 versus 16), more threads (48 versus 32), and a higher boost clock (3.40 GHz versus 3.30 GHz). The verdict from the data: if raw Cinebench scores are the sole criterion, the Intel wins, but the overall system-level capabilities favor AMD in memory-bound or I/O-heavy deployments.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7302 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite this 50% core advantage for Intel, the performance gap in benchmarks remains only 0.1%, suggesting the AMD architecture compensates effectively through other means.

Q: How do their cache configurations differ?

A: The EPYC 7302 features 32 MB of L3 cache per die with a total of 128 MB across all dies, plus 512 KB L2 per core. The Xeon Gold 5318Y has 36 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB L2 per core. The AMD part offers over three times the total L3 capacity, which could benefit workloads with large working sets.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7302 provides 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Xeon Gold 5318Y delivers 187.7 GB/s. Both support eight-channel DDR4 memory and ECC, but AMD's higher bandwidth may help in memory-intensive applications.

Q: Do both processors support PCIe Gen 4?

A: Yes, but with different lane counts. The EPYC 7302 supports 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon Gold 5318Y supports 64 lanes (CPU only). This makes the AMD part more suitable for systems requiring extensive I/O connectivity.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y boosts to 3.40 GHz, while the EPYC 7302 boosts to 3.30 GHz. The Intel chip also has a lower base clock at 2.10 GHz versus AMD's 3.00 GHz, meaning the EPYC sustains higher frequencies under all-core loads.

Q: Are there significant benchmark differences between them?

A: No. The largest delta is 0.1% in favor of the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y across five of six tests, with a 0.0% tie in Cinebench R15 single-core. The EPYC 7302 does not win a single benchmark in this comparison, yet the scores remain statistically inseparable.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is stark: Intel employs a monolithic 10 nm Ice Lake-SP design manufactured in-house, while AMD uses a chiplet-based 7 nm Zen 2 (Rome) architecture fabricated by TSMC. The EPYC 7302 consists of four 74 mm² dies, totaling 15,200 million transistors, whereas the Xeon Gold 5318Y's transistor count and die size are not listed. This chiplet approach explains AMD's massive 128 MB total L3 cache — each die contributes 32 MB — while Intel consolidates 36 MB into a single shared pool.

The cache hierarchy diverges further at L2: Intel allocates 1 MB per core, AMD only 512 KB per core. Both use 64 KB L1 per core. The AMD architecture's larger aggregate L3 may compensate for its smaller per-core L2, especially in multi-threaded workloads that benefit from shared data residing in fast cache memory.

Process technology differences are significant: Intel is on 10 nm, AMD on 7 nm. The smaller node typically enables better power efficiency, and the data supports this — the EPYC 7302 draws 155 W TDP despite having a higher base clock (3.00 GHz versus 2.10 GHz), while the Intel part consumes 165 W. The AMD chip's higher base frequency suggests it can sustain greater all-core throughput without exceeding its thermal envelope, which may explain how a 16-core part keeps pace with a 24-core rival in multi-threaded benchmarks.

The memory controllers also differ in bandwidth capacity: AMD's 204.8 GB/s exceeds Intel's 187.7 GB/s by approximately 9%. Both platforms support eight-channel DDR4 and ECC memory, but the AMD platform's higher theoretical bandwidth could prove decisive in memory-bound server workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y | AMD EPYC 7302 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 48 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.40 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| TDP | 165 W | 155 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4189 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 32 MB (per die), 128 MB total |

| Memory Bandwidth | 187.7 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 4, 64 (CPU only) | Gen 4, 128 (CPU only) |

| Release Date | 2021-04-05 | 2019-08-06 |

| Launch MSRP | — | $978 |

The EPYC 7302's launch MSRP is documented at $978, while the Xeon Gold 5318Y's launch MSRP is not provided. The AMD chip launched in August 2019, nearly two years before the Intel part's April 2021 release. The EPYC 7302's part number is listed as 100-000000043, while Intel's part number is absent. Both processors target the server/workstation segment, support ECC memory, and lack integrated graphics and unlocked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six Cinebench comparisons produce an unambiguous but razor-thin result. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon Gold 5318Y scores 2839 against the EPYC 7302's 2836, a 0.1% advantage. Single-core R15 results are identical at 400 for both, marking the only tie in the entire dataset. Moving to Cinebench R20, Intel leads 11830 versus 11818 in multi-core (0.1%) and 1669 versus 1668 in single-core (0.1%). The R23 suite follows the same pattern: Intel wins multi-core 28168 to 28140 and single-core 3976 to 3972, both by 0.1%.

These margins are remarkable given the core disparity. The Intel chip has 50% more cores (24 versus 16) but only edges ahead by 0.1% in multi-threaded tests. This suggests the EPYC 7302's higher base clock (3.00 GHz versus 2.10 GHz) allows its 16 cores to sustain greater throughput, while the Xeon Gold 5318Y's 24 cores rely on turbo frequencies to pull ahead. The single-core results show near-identical performance, with Intel's 3.40 GHz boost clock narrowly surpassing AMD's 3.30 GHz. The 0.1% deltas are consistently in Intel's favor across every non-tied test, but no benchmark shows a decisive victory.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the parity: Intel's 8147 versus AMD's 8139, a 0.1% gap. Both processors rank in the 64th percentile of all CPUs, and the nearest rival lists confirm the closeness — the Xeon Gold 5318Y's nearest competitor is the EPYC 7302 with a 0.1% delta, and vice versa. Interestingly, the Intel Core i3-8100 and Core i5-7500 appear in the rival lists with deltas ranging from -0.7% to 0.3%, showing that these server chips' average scores fall within a tight cluster of desktop processors.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y wins every benchmark in this comparison, but the practical implications are minimal given the 0.1% margins. Its advantages manifest in core count (24 versus 16), threads (48 versus 32), and boost clock (3.40 GHz versus 3.30 GHz). For workloads that scale with thread count and can sustain boost frequencies — such as certain virtualization or database workloads — the Intel part offers headroom. The larger per-core L2 cache (1 MB versus 512 KB) may benefit latency-sensitive applications that repeatedly access the same data.

The AMD EPYC 7302, despite winning zero benchmarks, presents compelling advantages in system-level capabilities. Its 128 MB total L3 cache is more than triple Intel's 36 MB, which could dramatically improve performance in workloads with large working sets that fit in cache, such as in-memory databases or data analytics. The 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes double Intel's 64 lanes, enabling more NVMe drives, GPUs, or network adapters without needing additional switches. Its memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s exceeds Intel's 187.7 GB/s, benefiting memory-bound applications. The lower TDP (155 W versus 165 W) and higher base clock (3.00 GHz versus 2.10 GHz) suggest better sustained performance per watt in densely packed servers. The EPYC 7302 also has a documented launch MSRP of $978, while the Intel part's pricing is not available in the data.

For buyers, the choice hinges on workload characteristics beyond Cinebench. If the application relies on raw core count and can leverage 48 threads, the Xeon Gold 5318Y provides a nominal edge. If the workload demands extensive cache capacity, high PCIe connectivity, or maximum memory bandwidth, the EPYC 7302's specifications make it the more sensible selection despite its benchmark losses. The data indicates these processors are functionally equivalent in compute performance, so the deciding factors are platform-level features and system integration requirements.