AMD EPYC 7302 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 Comparison

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 and the AMD EPYC 7302 are both server-class processors aimed at similar workloads, but the benchmark data reveals a consistent, albeit narrow, margin of victory for the Intel part across all tested Cinebench iterations. The head-to-head results show the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 winning all six benchmark comparisons, with the largest advantage being a 2.2% lead in multi-core and single-core tests. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Intel chip scored 2897 against the EPYC 7302's 2836, and in the single-core variant, it scored 408 versus 400. This pattern persists in the R20 and R23 workloads, where the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 maintains a 2.2% edge in every test, including a 12074 versus 11818 result in R20 multi-core and a 28749 versus 28140 result in R23 multi-core. The consistency of these deltas—all falling between 2% and 2.2%—suggests a stable performance advantage that scales uniformly with workload intensity rather than emerging only under specific conditions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark suite shows Intel's Xeon Platinum 8268 ahead in every single measurement, but the margins are tight and consistent. The largest win for the Intel part is a 2.2% delta in multi-core tests, which appears identically in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. In the R15 multi-core test, the Intel processor scores 2897 against the AMD EPYC 7302's 2836, a difference of 61 points. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar gap, with Intel at 12074 and AMD at 11818, a 256-point difference. The R23 multi-core test follows suit, with Intel at 28749 and AMD at 28140, a 609-point gap.

Single-core results tell the same story. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 wins the R15 single-core test with a score of 408 versus 400, a 2% delta. In R20 single-core, Intel scores 1704 against AMD's 1668, again a 2.2% delta. The R23 single-core test shows Intel at 4058 and AMD at 3972, which is also a 2.2% delta. The fact that the deltaPct is nearly identical across all six tests—hovering at 2% to 2.2%—indicates that the performance gap is not workload-dependent in the Cinebench suite. It is a uniform advantage that Intel holds in both lightly threaded and heavily threaded scenarios. The AMD EPYC 7302 does not win a single benchmark in this comparison, but its scores are close enough to keep the competition relevant, especially considering the architectural differences that favor it in other areas.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 is built on Intel's 14 nm process node and features 8,000 million transistors. It uses the Cascade Lake-SP architecture, also known as Cascade Lake, and fits into the Intel Socket 3647. The AMD EPYC 7302, on the other hand, is manufactured on a 7 nm TSMC process with 15,200 million transistors, and it uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Rome codename. It fits into the AMD Socket SP3. The die size differs as well, with the EPYC 7302 using four dies at 74 mm² each, while the Intel part has no listed die size.

Core and cache configurations diverge significantly. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7302 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel part offers 1 MB of L2 cache per core and a shared L3 cache of 35.75 MB. The AMD part has 512 KB of L2 cache per core and 32 MB of L3 cache per die, for a total L3 cache of 128 MB. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core. The AMD EPYC 7302 also has a higher base clock at 3.00 GHz versus Intel's 2.90 GHz, but the Intel part has a higher boost clock at 3.90 GHz versus AMD's 3.30 GHz. The TDP figures differ, with Intel at 205 watts and AMD at 155 watts.

Memory and I/O capabilities show the AMD part with a more expansive platform. The AMD EPYC 7302 supports an eight-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the Intel part only lists DDR4 memory support with no specific bus width or bandwidth. The AMD part also includes PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Intel part has no PCIe specification listed. Both processors support ECC memory and are marked for the server/workstation market segment. The AMD part has an active production status, while the Intel part's status is not listed. Release dates differ, with Intel launching on 2018-12-10 and AMD on 2019-08-06.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7302 has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speeds?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, which is higher than the AMD EPYC 7302's boost clock of 3.30 GHz.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 has 35.75 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 7302 has 128 MB of total L3 cache (32 MB per die across four dies).

Q: Which processor has a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 is manufactured on a 7 nm process, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 uses a 14 nm process.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 has an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 only lists DDR4 support without a specific bandwidth figure.

Q: Did the Intel processor win all the Cinebench tests?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 won all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 2% to 2.2% over the AMD EPYC 7302.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification fields. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 has 24 cores and 48 threads, versus the AMD EPYC 7302's 16 cores and 32 threads. The base clock is lower on Intel at 2.90 GHz compared to AMD's 3.00 GHz, but the boost clock is higher on Intel at 3.90 GHz versus AMD's 3.30 GHz. The TDP is higher on Intel at 205 watts, while AMD is rated at 155 watts. The process node is 14 nm for Intel and 7 nm for AMD, with Intel using its own foundry and AMD using TSMC. Transistor counts are 8,000 million for Intel and 15,200 million for AMD. The AMD part has a die size of 4x 74 mm², while Intel's die size is not listed.

Cache allocation varies, with Intel providing 1 MB of L2 per core and 35.75 MB of shared L3, while AMD provides 512 KB of L2 per core and 128 MB of total L3 (32 MB per die). The memory bus is eight-channel for AMD with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while Intel lists no bus width or bandwidth. PCIe support is present only for AMD, which has Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The socket types are different, with Intel using Socket 3647 and AMD using Socket SP3. Release dates also differ, with Intel on 2018-12-10 and AMD on 2019-08-06. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of $978, while Intel has no launch MSRP listed. Production status is active for AMD, while Intel's status is not listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 wins in raw processing speed as measured by Cinebench. It takes the lead in all six benchmark tests, including multi-core and single-core variants across R15, R20, and R23. The 2.2% advantage in multi-core tests suggests that applications which scale well with thread count and depend on sustained multicore throughput will see a slight but consistent edge with the Intel part. Its higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz also helps in single-threaded tasks, where it outperforms the AMD EPYC 7302 by 2% to 2.2%.

The AMD EPYC 7302 wins in platform-level features and efficiency. It has a lower TDP of 155 watts versus Intel's 205 watts, which can translate to lower power draw per socket. It also offers a more expansive memory subsystem with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, which is critical for memory-bandwidth-intensive workloads such as large in-memory databases or high-performance computing applications that stream large datasets. The AMD part also includes PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, which enables faster interconnect and more expansion options for storage and accelerators. Its larger total L3 cache of 128 MB versus Intel's 35.75 MB could benefit workloads with large working sets that fit in cache.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear split between compute performance and platform capabilities. For users who prioritize maximum Cinebench scores and need the highest possible thread count in a single socket, the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 is the stronger choice. It consistently outperforms the AMD EPYC 7302 in every measured benchmark, with a uniform 2.2% lead in multi-core tests and a 2% to 2.2% lead in single-core tests. Its 24 cores and 48 threads provide a higher core count, and its boost clock of 3.90 GHz is notably higher than AMD's 3.30 GHz.

However, the AMD EPYC 7302 offers a different set of advantages that are not captured by Cinebench scores. Its seven-nanometer process node, lower TDP, and larger L3 cache present a compelling case for power-sensitive or memory-heavy deployments. The eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth is a substantial feature that the Intel part does not match in the specification sheet. Additionally, the AMD part includes PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, which is absent from the Intel listing. The AMD EPYC 7302 also has a launch MSRP of $978, while the Intel part has no MSRP listed. Given that the AMD part loses by only 2.2% in the benchmarks but offers superior memory bandwidth, more cache, and a lower TDP, the decision hinges on whether raw CPU speed or platform throughput is the limiting factor. For pure compute density, the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 wins. For a balanced server platform with high memory and I/O throughput, the AMD EPYC 7302 is the data-backed alternative.