AMD EPYC 7302 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7302 and Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M are both high-core-count server processors, yet they represent two very different design philosophies. The EPYC 7302 pairs a modern 7 nm Zen 2 architecture with 16 cores, while the Xeon Platinum 8180M leverages a 14 nm Skylake-SP design with 28 cores. Benchmark data shows the EPYC 7302 winning every single head-to-head comparison, despite the Intel chip’s substantial core-count advantage. Their average benchmark scores are remarkably close—8139 for the AMD part versus 8110 for the Intel part—placing them nearly side-by-side in the global percentile ranking at the 64th percentile. This near-tie in overall performance, achieved through opposite means, makes for a compelling architectural case study.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals a consistent, though narrow, victory for the AMD EPYC 7302 across all six tests. In the multicore Cinebench R15 test, the EPYC 7302 scores 2836 against the Xeon’s 2826, a delta of 0.4%. The single-core R15 test follows the same pattern, with the EPYC 7302 posting 400 versus 398, a 0.5% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore results show the EPYC 7302 at 11818 and the Xeon at 11776, again a 0.4% gap. The single-core R20 result is 1668 for the AMD chip versus 1662 for the Intel chip, a 0.4% margin.

The most modern benchmark in the set, Cinebench R23, continues the trend. In the multicore test, the EPYC 7302 scores 28140, while the Xeon Platinum 8180M manages 28040—a 0.4% difference. The single-core R23 test shows 3972 for the AMD processor against 3958 for the Intel processor, a 0.4% delta. Across all six head-to-head benchmarks, the EPYC 7302 wins every round, securing a 6-0 sweep. The largest single victory is the 0.5% margin in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, while the other five tests all settle at exactly 0.4%.

The data suggests the EPYC 7302’s architectural efficiency fully compensates for its 12-core deficit. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M’s 28 cores and 56 threads cannot overcome the per-core performance gap. The average benchmark score difference is 29 points in favor of the AMD chip, and both processors share the same 64th percentile ranking among all CPUs. This demonstrates that raw core count is not the sole determinant of real-world rendering performance; clock speed, IPC, and memory subsystem design play equally critical roles.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7302 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the data, making it the definitive choice for Cinebench workloads. Its victories span both single-core and multicore tests, indicating strength in lightly-threaded tasks and heavily-parallel rendering jobs alike. The single-core wins, though small, are notable because they show the Zen 2 architecture delivers higher per-thread performance than Skylake-SP, even with the Xeon’s higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus the EPYC’s 3.30 GHz.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M, despite losing all head-to-head tests, still holds a theoretical advantage in thread count. With 28 cores and 56 threads, it offers 75% more cores and 75% more threads than the EPYC 7302’s 16 cores and 32 threads. In workloads that scale perfectly with core count and are not present in the Cinebench suite, the Xeon’s raw parallelism could theoretically close the gap. However, the benchmark data as provided shows no such scenario; the EPYC 7302’s efficiency wins across the board.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the EPYC 7302’s base clock of 3.00 GHz is higher than the Xeon’s 2.50 GHz, though the Xeon boosts higher. The benchmark results indicate the EPYC’s lower boost clock still produces higher single-core scores, suggesting superior instructions-per-clock (IPC) in the Zen 2 core. For multi-threaded throughput, the EPYC 7302’s 128 MB of total L3 cache, distributed as 32 MB per die across four dies, likely provides better data locality than the Xeon’s 38.5 MB shared L3.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark. The AMD EPYC 7302 is built on a 7 nm process node at TSMC, packing 15,200 million transistors across four 74 mm² dies. This chiplet design, codenamed Rome, is part of the EPYC 7002 series and uses the Zen 2 architecture. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M, in contrast, uses a 14 nm process at Intel with 8,000 million transistors on a monolithic die, based on the Skylake-SP architecture. The process node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 14 nm, which largely explains the EPYC’s efficiency advantage.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The EPYC 7302 provides 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB across its four dies. The Xeon Platinum 8180M also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but doubles the L2 to 1 MB per core, and offers a 38.5 MB shared L3 cache. The EPYC’s total L3 cache is over three times larger, which is a major factor in its ability to match the Xeon’s multicore performance despite fewer cores.

Memory support further differentiates the pair. The EPYC 7302 supports DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Xeon Platinum 8180M also supports DDR4 and ECC memory, but the fact pack does not list its memory bus width or bandwidth, leaving a gap in the comparison. The EPYC 7302 also features PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon’s PCIe specification is not listed. Both processors target the server/workstation market segment and lack integrated graphics.

The socket and power envelopes reflect their respective platforms. The EPYC 7302 fits into AMD Socket SP3 with a TDP of 155 watts, while the Xeon Platinum 8180M uses Intel Socket 3647 with a higher TDP of 205 watts. The EPYC’s lower TDP, combined with its 7 nm process, indicates superior power efficiency per core. The Xeon’s higher TDP aligns with its larger core count and older process node. The EPYC 7302 launched on 2019-08-06, while the Xeon Platinum 8180M launched earlier on 2017-07-10.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7302 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite this 12-core difference, the EPYC 7302 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between these two CPUs?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 has an average benchmark score of 8139, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M scores 8110. The EPYC 7302 is 0.4% ahead in average score, and both sit at the 64th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How does the cache size compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 provides 128 MB of total L3 cache, arranged as 32 MB per die across four dies, plus 512 KB of L2 per core. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M offers a 38.5 MB shared L3 cache and 1 MB of L2 per core. The EPYC’s total L3 is more than three times larger.

Q: What are the process node and transistor counts?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 uses a 7 nm process at TSMC with 15,200 million transistors. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M uses a 14 nm process at Intel with 8,000 million transistors. The EPYC’s smaller node allows higher density and efficiency.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M have a higher boost clock?

A: Yes, the Xeon Platinum 8180M has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, compared to the EPYC 7302’s 3.30 GHz. However, the EPYC 7302 still wins the single-core Cinebench R15 test by 0.5%, scoring 400 versus 398.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 has a TDP of 155 watts, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M has a TDP of 205 watts. The EPYC 7302 achieves higher benchmark scores with a 50-watt lower power envelope.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The AMD EPYC 7302 offers 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M offers 28 cores and 56 threads. Base clocks are 3.00 GHz for the EPYC and 2.50 GHz for the Xeon; boost clocks are 3.30 GHz and 3.80 GHz, respectively. TDP ratings are 155 watts for the AMD part and 205 watts for the Intel part. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 3647.

Architecture and manufacturing details diverge completely. The EPYC 7302 is based on Zen 2 with the codename Rome, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Xeon Platinum 8180M uses Skylake architecture with the codename Skylake-SP, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel. Transistor counts are 15,200 million for the AMD chip versus 8,000 million for the Intel chip. The die size is listed as 4x 74 mm² for the EPYC, while the Xeon’s die size is not provided.

Cache configurations differ in both L2 and L3. The EPYC 7302 has 512 KB of L2 per core and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB. The Xeon Platinum 8180M has 1 MB of L2 per core and 38.5 MB of shared L3. Memory support shows the EPYC with an eight-channel DDR4 bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon’s memory bus and bandwidth are not listed. PCIe support is present on the EPYC as Gen 4 with 128 lanes, whereas the Xeon’s PCIe details are absent. The EPYC has a listed part number and launch MSRP of $978, while the Xeon’s part number and launch MSRP are not provided. The EPYC’s release date is 2019-08-06, and the Xeon’s is 2017-07-10.