AMD EPYC 7302P vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7302P wins every single head-to-head comparison against the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260, with a 6–0 sweep across all six Cinebench tests. The margins are remarkably consistent, hovering almost uniformly around the 15% mark. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7302P scores 2800 against the Xeon’s 2436, a 14.9% advantage. The single-core R15 result shows a similar gap: 395 versus 343, a 15.2% lead for AMD. This pattern repeats in R20 multicore (11670 vs 10152, 15% delta) and R20 single-core (1647 vs 1433, 14.9% delta). The R23 results close the story with the same shape: 27786 versus 24173 in multicore (14.9% delta) and 3922 versus 3412 in single-core (14.9% delta).

What stands out is the uniformity of the margin. The deltas range from 14.9% to 15.2%, meaning the relative performance gap does not widen or shrink with workload intensity. That consistency suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. In aggregate, the EPYC 7302P’s average benchmark score is 7100, while the Xeon Platinum 8260 sits at 6992 — a 1.6% difference in the overall average. That aggregate gap is far smaller than the Cinebench deltas, which indicates the EPYC’s edge is pronounced in rendering workloads but may be less dominant in other benchmark categories that feed into the average.

The nearest-rival data puts both CPUs in the same competitive band. The EPYC 7302P is 1.2% above the Intel Core i9-7980XE (7018) and 2.3% above the Intel Core i9-9960X (6938). The Xeon Platinum 8260 is 0.4% behind the i9-7980XE, 0.8% ahead of the i9-9960X, and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Pentium Gold G6400. Both CPUs sit at the 63rd percentile among all CPUs, so neither is a top-tier outlier; they are solidly mid-pack performers that happen to be closely matched in aggregate but clearly separated in Cinebench.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7302P is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, using a 7 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 uses the Cascade Lake architecture, codenamed Cascade Lake-SP, on Intel’s 14 nm process. The transistor counts reflect the process gap: AMD packs 15,200 million transistors across a 4x 74 mm² die configuration, while Intel uses 8,000 million transistors on a single die with no listed die size. The 7 nm process gives AMD a density and efficiency advantage that shows up directly in the benchmark margins.

Core and thread counts favor Intel on paper. The Xeon Platinum 8260 has 24 cores and 48 threads, versus 16 cores and 32 threads for the EPYC 7302P. Despite having 50% more cores, the Xeon still loses decisively in multicore benchmarks, which points to a major per-core efficiency gap. Clock speeds tell a mixed story: the Xeon has a higher boost clock at 3.90 GHz versus 3.30 GHz, but the EPYC has a higher base clock at 3.00 GHz versus 2.40 GHz. The EPYC’s higher base clock and superior IPC from Zen 2 more than compensate for the core count deficit.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The EPYC 7302P has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB of L3 across the chip. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 35.75 MB of shared L3. The EPYC’s 128 MB of total L3 is more than 3.5 times the Xeon’s 35.75 MB, which is a significant advantage for workloads that benefit from large resident datasets. The EPYC also supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a stated bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the Xeon’s memory bus and bandwidth are not listed in the data. Both support ECC memory.

Connectivity is another differentiator. The EPYC 7302P offers PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon’s PCIe specifications are not listed. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, and the Xeon uses Intel Socket 3647. Both are server/workstation parts with locked multipliers. The EPYC was released on 2019-08-06, while the Xeon came earlier on 2018-12-10. The EPYC’s launch MSRP is $825; the Xeon has no listed launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7302P wins everywhere that Cinebench measures. In multicore rendering, the EPYC’s 14.9–15% advantage across R15, R20, and R23 means it is the clear choice for CPU-bound render farms, video encoding, and any workload that scales across all cores. The fact that it achieves this with only 16 cores against the Xeon’s 24 cores makes the result more striking — the per-core throughput is substantially higher. For single-threaded tasks, the EPYC also leads by 14.9–15.2%, so there is no scenario in the data where the Xeon takes a win.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260’s case rests on core count and clock headroom rather than measured performance. With 24 cores and 48 threads, it offers more parallel hardware, and its 3.90 GHz boost clock is higher than the EPYC’s 3.30 GHz. In theory, workloads that are extremely well-optimized for many threads and that can push boost clocks aggressively might narrow the gap, but the benchmark data does not support that outcome in Cinebench. The Xeon’s 1 MB L2 per core is double the EPYC’s 512 KB per core, which could help in certain access patterns, but the EPYC’s 128 MB total L3 dwarfs the Xeon’s 35.75 MB shared L3.

The aggregate average benchmark scores are close enough that the two CPUs should be viewed as peers in a broad benchmark suite. The EPYC’s 7100 average versus the Xeon’s 6992 is a 1.6% edge, but the nearest-rival lists show both CPUs trading places with the same competitors. The EPYC is 1.2% above the Intel Core i9-7980XE, while the Xeon is 0.4% below that same chip. The Xeon is 0.8% above the Intel Core i9-9960X, while the EPYC is 2.3% above it. The Xeon’s closest rival is the Intel Pentium Gold G6400 at a 0.3% delta, which is a surprisingly close match for a 24-core Platinum part.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 has 24 cores and 48 threads, compared to the AMD EPYC 7302P’s 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: What is the size of the L3 cache on each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P has 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 has 35.75 MB of shared L3.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P wins all three single-core Cinebench tests: R15 (395 vs 343, 15.2% delta), R20 (1647 vs 1433, 14.9% delta), and R23 (3922 vs 3412, 14.9% delta).

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 uses a 14 nm process from Intel.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, which is higher than the AMD EPYC 7302P’s 3.30 GHz boost clock.

Q: How close are the aggregate benchmark scores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P has an average benchmark score of 7100, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 has 6992, a 1.6% difference in favor of AMD.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7302P is the faster processor in every benchmark category measured here. Its 14.9–15.2% lead across all six Cinebench tests, both single-core and multicore, is decisive and consistent. The EPYC achieves this with fewer cores (16 vs 24) and a lower boost clock (3.30 GHz vs 3.90 GHz), which means its per-core efficiency and memory subsystem are doing the heavy lifting. The 128 MB total L3 cache and 7 nm Zen 2 architecture are the likely drivers of this advantage, though the data does not isolate the exact cause.

For workloads that resemble Cinebench — heavily threaded rendering, simulation, or content creation — the EPYC 7302P is the better choice based on measured results. Its higher base clock (3.00 GHz vs 2.40 GHz) also suggests better sustained performance under load, since boost clocks are typically transient. The Xeon Platinum 8260’s higher core count may appeal to buyers who need more logical processors for virtualization or heavily parallel thread scheduling, but the benchmark evidence shows that the EPYC’s 32 threads outperform the Xeon’s 48 threads in rendering tasks.

The aggregate scores are close enough that the two CPUs are competitive in a general-purpose server context. The 1.6% average score difference is within the noise of typical workload variance. However, when the specific benchmark data is the deciding factor, the AMD EPYC 7302P wins outright. The Xeon’s only listed advantages are core count, boost clock, and L2 cache per core — none of which translate into a benchmark victory. For a buyer choosing strictly on the evidence in this data, the EPYC 7302P is the faster part, and the Xeon Platinum 8260 is the alternative for those who prioritize core count over measured performance.