AMD EPYC 7302P vs Intel Xeon Gold 5317 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7302P and the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 are both server-class processors aimed at dual-socket and single-socket workstations, but the recorded benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap. The AMD EPYC 7302P, built on the Zen 2 architecture, wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests against the Intel Xeon Gold 5317, which is based on Ice Lake-SP. The AMD part holds an average benchmark score of 7100, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel part averages 6710, sitting in the 62nd percentile. The AMD EPYC 7302P had a launch MSRP of $825, and the data indicates a consistent performance advantage across every measured workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent across the entire Cinebench suite. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the AMD EPYC 7302P scores 2800, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 scores 2338, giving the AMD part a 19.8% lead. The single-core R15 test follows the same pattern, with the AMD part scoring 395 against the Intel part's 330, a 19.7% advantage. This near-identical delta in both single and multi-core tests suggests a fundamental architectural throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the results mirror the R15 data almost exactly. The AMD EPYC 7302P scores 11670 in multi-core, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 scores 9743, again a 19.8% difference. In single-core R20, the AMD part scores 1647 versus the Intel part's 1375, which is also a 19.8% delta. The consistency of this margin across different Cinebench versions indicates that the performance gap is stable and not influenced by the specific rendering workload.

The Cinebench R23 results continue the trend. The AMD EPYC 7302P achieves a multi-core score of 27786, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 reaches 23199, a 19.8% lead for AMD. In single-core R23, the AMD part scores 3922, and the Intel part scores 3275, once again a 19.8% difference. The fact that the delta is precisely 19.8% in five of the six tests, and 19.7% in the remaining one, points to a highly predictable performance relationship between these two processors.

The Intel Xeon Gold 5317 does have a higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz compared to the AMD part's 3.30 GHz, yet it still loses every single-core test. This indicates that the AMD Zen 2 architecture delivers more instructions per clock in these workloads, or that the memory subsystem and cache hierarchy provide a compensating advantage. The AMD part also has a higher memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s versus the Intel part's 187.7 GB/s, which may contribute to the multi-core results. Overall, the AMD EPYC 7302P wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, leaving the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 with zero wins in the recorded data.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7302P is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. For any workload represented by the Cinebench suite, the AMD part delivers a near-20% performance advantage over the Intel Xeon Gold 5317. The AMD part achieves this with 16 cores and 32 threads, compared to the Intel part's 12 cores and 24 threads. The higher core count, combined with a larger total L3 cache of 128 MB versus the Intel part's 18 MB shared L3, gives the AMD part a clear throughput edge.

The Intel Xeon Gold 5317, despite being released later in April 2021 compared to the AMD part's August 2019 release, cannot overcome the older AMD design in these tests. The Intel part's higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz and its larger L2 cache of 1 MB per core do not translate into benchmark wins. The AMD part's nearest rival in the database is the Intel Core i9-7980XE, which it leads by 1.2%, and it is 1.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260. The Intel Xeon Gold 5317, by contrast, is exactly tied with the Intel Xeon D-2775TE at a 0% delta and is only 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 72F3.

For users choosing between these two specific processors, the data strongly favors the AMD EPYC 7302P. It wins all six head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score, and offers more cores, threads, and memory bandwidth. The Intel part's only nominal advantages are its higher boost clock and slightly lower TDP of 150 W versus 155 W, but these do not produce any measured performance benefit. The verdict from the recorded data is clear: the AMD EPYC 7302P is the superior choice for the workloads tested.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD EPYC 7302P uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and is manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Xeon Gold 5317 uses the Ice Lake architecture, codenamed Ice Lake-SP, and is manufactured on a 10 nm process by Intel. The AMD part integrates 15,200 million transistors across a die size of 4x 74 mm², while the Intel part's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

The core configurations differ significantly. The AMD EPYC 7302P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Both have a base clock of 3.00 GHz, but the Intel part boosts higher to 3.60 GHz, while the AMD part boosts to 3.30 GHz. The cache hierarchies are also distinct. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of L3 cache per die, totaling 128 MB. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Memory support is similar in type but different in bandwidth. Both processors support DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, but the AMD part achieves a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the Intel part achieves 187.7 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The PCIe capabilities also differ: the AMD part provides PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the Intel part provides PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes. The AMD part uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 4189. The AMD part has a TDP of 155 W, and the Intel part has a TDP of 150 W. Neither processor includes integrated graphics, and both are unlocked for multiplier adjustment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P supports 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 supports 187.7 GB/s. Both use eight-channel DDR4 memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5317 has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7302P has a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. Despite this, the AMD part wins all single-core Cinebench tests.

Q: How does the AMD EPYC 7302P compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD part is 1.2% ahead of the Intel Core i9-7980XE and 1.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 in average benchmark score.

Q: How does the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel part is exactly tied with the Intel Xeon D-2775TE at a 0% delta and is 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 72F3.

Q: What are the manufacturing process nodes?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the AMD EPYC 7302P wins every head-to-head benchmark. It is the clear choice for multi-threaded rendering workloads, as demonstrated by its 19.8% lead in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. It also wins all single-core tests, making it the better option for lightly threaded tasks as well. The AMD part's 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with its 128 MB total L3 cache, provide a substantial throughput advantage over the Intel part's 12 cores and 24 threads.

The Intel Xeon Gold 5317 does not win a single recorded test. Its architectural features, such as a higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz and a larger L2 cache of 1 MB per core, do not yield a performance win in the database. The Intel part's only nominal advantages are its slightly lower TDP of 150 W versus 155 W and its newer release date of April 2021. However, these do not translate into any measured performance benefit.

For workloads represented by the Cinebench suite, the AMD EPYC 7302P is the superior choice. The AMD part also offers more PCIe lanes (128 versus 64) and higher memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s versus 187.7 GB/s), which may benefit other server workloads not covered by these benchmarks. The Intel part's potential niche would be in a system that specifically requires its Socket 4189 or its lower TDP, but the performance data shows no advantage for the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 in any measured category.