AMD EPYC 7302 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6326 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7302 and Intel Xeon Gold 6326 are both 16-core server processors aimed at dual-socket platforms, but the benchmark data shows a clear, consistent pattern: the EPYC 7302 wins every single head-to-head test in this comparison. The margins are narrow, ranging from 0.8% to 1.0%, but they are uniform across all six Cinebench workloads. This is not a case of one chip dominating in multithreaded tasks while the other takes single-threaded; the AMD part is ahead in both categories. The average benchmark score for the EPYC 7302 is 8139, while the Xeon Gold 6326 sits at 8071, a difference of 0.8% according to the nearestRivals data. Both processors occupy the 64th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they land in the same performance tier overall, but the EPYC 7302 holds a slight edge in every measured scenario.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7302 wins all six benchmark comparisons listed in this dataset. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 2836 against the Xeon's 2812, a 0.9% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a 1% lead (400 vs 396). Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC 7302 takes multicore with 11818 versus 11719 (0.8% delta) and single-core with 1668 versus 1654 (0.8% delta). The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23: the EPYC 7302 scores 28140 in multicore and 3972 in single-core, while the Xeon Gold 6326 scores 27904 and 3939, respectively, both with a 0.8% delta. There is no benchmark in this dataset where the Intel Xeon Gold 6326 comes out ahead. The wins are not concentrated in one workload type; they are spread evenly across both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering tests. For a buyer choosing strictly on these Cinebench results, the EPYC 7302 is the pick in every scenario. The Xeon's only consolation is that the differences are small enough to be within run-to-run variance on many systems, but the data as presented gives AMD a clean sweep.

Architecture Differences

The two chips are built on fundamentally different designs. The AMD EPYC 7302 uses the Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It features a chiplet design with a die size listed as 4x 74 mm², and the transistor count is 15,200 million. The Intel Xeon Gold 6326 uses the Ice Lake architecture with the Ice Lake-SP codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The foundry for the Intel part is listed as Intel, and no transistor count or die size is provided in the data. Cache layouts diverge significantly: the EPYC 7302 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 32 MB of L3 per die and a total L3 of 128 MB. The Xeon Gold 6326 also has 64 KB of L1 per core but doubles the L2 to 1 MB per core, while its L3 is 24 MB shared, with no total L3 figure given. The EPYC 7302's larger total L3 cache is a notable architectural advantage for workloads that benefit from large shared pools of data. Both chips support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, and both support ECC memory. PCIe support differs: the EPYC 7302 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon Gold 6326 provides Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC 7302 has double the PCIe lanes, which matters for systems with many GPUs or NVMe drives. The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 4189. Clock speeds differ slightly, with the EPYC 7302's base clock at 3.00 GHz and boost at 3.30 GHz, while the Xeon Gold 6326 has a lower base of 2.90 GHz but a higher boost of 3.50 GHz. TDP is another split: 155 W for the AMD part versus 185 W for the Intel part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The closest race in the entire dataset is Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC 7302 scores 400 and the Xeon Gold 6326 scores 396, a 1% delta. This is the largest margin AMD achieves anywhere. The R15 multicore test is nearly as close, with the EPYC 7302 at 2836 and the Xeon at 2812, a 0.9% difference. All other tests show a 0.8% delta. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the EPYC 7302 posts 11818, which is 99 points ahead of the Xeon's 11719. The R20 single-core result is 1668 versus 1654, a 14-point gap. In the newer Cinebench R23, the multicore scores are 28140 for the EPYC 7302 and 27904 for the Xeon, a 236-point gap. The R23 single-core scores are 3972 and 3939, a 33-point gap. Across all six tests, the EPYC 7302's lead is consistent but modest. The data suggests that the Intel part's higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz (versus 3.30 GHz on the AMD) does not translate into a single-core win, likely because the AMD part's Zen 2 core efficiency compensates for the lower raw clock. In multicore workloads, the EPYC 7302's 128 MB total L3 cache and 7 nm process appear to offset the Xeon's larger per-core L2. The benchmark results are unambiguous: AMD wins each test, but none of the wins are decisive enough to call it a rout.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 has an average benchmark score of 8139, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6326 scores 8071. The delta between them is 0.8% per the nearestRivals data.

Q: Are the two CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7302 and the Intel Xeon Gold 6326 are in the 64th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in any test?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the AMD EPYC 7302 leads by 1% (400 vs 396).

Q: How does the cache configuration differ?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 has 512 KB of L2 per core and 128 MB of total L3, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6326 has 1 MB of L2 per core and 24 MB of shared L3.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon Gold 6326 provides Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only).

Specification Differences

• Base Clock: AMD EPYC 7302 at 3.00 GHz; Intel Xeon Gold 6326 at 2.90 GHz.
• Boost Clock: AMD EPYC 7302 at 3.30 GHz; Intel Xeon Gold 6326 at 3.50 GHz.
• TDP: AMD EPYC 7302 at 155 W; Intel Xeon Gold 6326 at 185 W.
• Socket: AMD EPYC 7302 uses AMD Socket SP3; Intel Xeon Gold 6326 uses Intel Socket 4189.
• Process Node: AMD EPYC 7302 at 7 nm (TSMC); Intel Xeon Gold 6326 at 10 nm (Intel).
• Transistors: AMD EPYC 7302 at 15,200 million; Intel Xeon Gold 6326 has no listed figure.
• Die Size: AMD EPYC 7302 at 4x 74 mm²; Intel Xeon Gold 6326 has no listed figure.
• L2 Cache: AMD EPYC 7302 at 512 KB per core; Intel Xeon Gold 6326 at 1 MB per core.
• L3 Cache: AMD EPYC 7302 at 32 MB per die (128 MB total); Intel Xeon Gold 6326 at 24 MB shared.
• PCIe Lanes: AMD EPYC 7302 at Gen 4, 128 lanes (CPU only); Intel Xeon Gold 6326 at Gen 4, 64 lanes (CPU only).
• Release Date: AMD EPYC 7302 on 2019-08-06; Intel Xeon Gold 6326 on 2021-04-05.
• Launch MSRP: AMD EPYC 7302 at $978; Intel Xeon Gold 6326 has no launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7302 wins every benchmark in this comparison, all six Cinebench tests, with deltas between 0.8% and 1.0%. It also offers a lower TDP of 155 W versus the Xeon's 185 W, double the PCIe lanes (128 vs 64), and a much larger total L3 cache (128 MB vs 24 MB). The Intel Xeon Gold 6326 has a higher boost clock (3.50 GHz vs 3.30 GHz) and a newer release date (2021 vs 2019), but these advantages do not translate into any benchmark wins in this dataset. For a server or workstation buyer choosing between these two specific processors based on the available Cinebench results, the EPYC 7302 is the better choice across the board. The Xeon Gold 6326 is not uncompetitive—its scores are within 1% of the AMD part in every test—but it loses every single head-to-head matchup. The EPYC 7302 also has a listed launch MSRP of $978, which you can consider as a reference point, but the benchmark data alone makes it the winner. The only scenario where the Xeon Gold 6326 might be preferable is if you require its specific Intel Socket 4189 platform or its 1 MB per-core L2 cache for a particular workload, but nothing in the benchmark results supports choosing it for raw performance. The verdict is straightforward: pick the AMD EPYC 7302 if your priority is the best Cinebench scores, lower power draw, more PCIe lanes, or larger L3 cache. The Intel Xeon Gold 6326 is a capable alternative that trails by a hair in every test, but it does not win anywhere.