AMD EPYC 7313 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6338T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database reveals a fascinating split between these two server processors. Across the seventeen recorded comparisons, the AMD EPYC 7313 claims twelve victories, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6338T secures five. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count suggests.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the EPYC 7313 demonstrates consistent dominance across every rendering test. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD part scores 3310 against Intel's 3067, a 7.9% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern: 467 versus 432, an 8.1% lead. This consistency carries through R20 and R23, where the AMD processor maintains exactly 7.9% deltas in both multicore and single-core tests. The R20 multicore result of 13795 versus 12780 and the R23 multicore score of 32847 versus 30430 both reinforce the same conclusion: the EPYC 7313 holds a steady, reproducible edge in CPU rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite introduces a more complex picture. The AMD processor wins PassMark multithread by 7.9% (38644 against 35801), matching its Cinebench multicore margin precisely. The single-thread PassMark result is closer, with the EPYC 7313 scoring 2402 against the Xeon's 2348, a modest 2.3% difference.

The most dramatic deltas appear in specialized workloads. The EPYC 7313 absolutely dominates in PassMark physics, scoring 3899 against the Xeon's 1160, a staggering 236.1% advantage. Prime number finding shows an equally lopsided result: 310 versus 118, a 162.7% lead for AMD. Data encryption also favors the EPYC 7313 heavily, with 31881 points against 24677, a 29.2% gap.

The Intel Xeon Gold 6338T fights back in several PassMark sub-tests. Extended instructions show its strongest win: 43292 versus 33430, a 22.8% advantage for Intel. Floating point math goes to the Xeon by 13.1% (90584 against 78748), while random string sorting favors Intel by 12.9% (66495 versus 57910). Data compression and integer math are closer Intel wins, at 5.8% (557816 versus 525507) and 5.7% (152275 versus 143648) respectively.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this mixed performance. The EPYC 7313 averages 57399 points, placing it at the 92nd percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon Gold 6338T averages 60572 points, also at the 92nd percentile. Despite the AMD processor winning more individual tests, the Intel part holds a higher aggregate score, indicating that the workloads where Intel excels carry substantial weight in the overall average.

Where Each One Wins

The data suggests distinct use-case territories for each processor. The EPYC 7313 is clearly the stronger choice for physics simulation, prime number computation, and encryption workloads. The 236.1% physics advantage and the 162.7% prime number lead are not marginal improvements; these are transformative differences that would reshape workload planning for any organization running such tasks. The 29.2% encryption advantage further cements the AMD part as the preferred option for security-related processing.

The Xeon Gold 6338T, conversely, asserts its superiority in extended instruction workloads, floating point math, and random string sorting. The 22.8% extended instructions lead suggests the Intel architecture handles complex instruction sets more efficiently. The 13.1% floating point advantage indicates stronger mathematical throughput for scientific or financial modeling. The 12.9% random string sorting win points to better performance in data indexing or text processing scenarios.

For rendering and general multithreaded productivity, the EPYC 7313 holds a consistent, if modest, 7.9% advantage across all Cinebench versions and PassMark multithread. This uniformity across different benchmark generations suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency rather than a test-specific artifact. The single-thread results, while favoring AMD, show a narrower 2.3% margin in PassMark, indicating that the two processors are closer in lightly threaded workloads.

The PassMark integer math and data compression tests favor Intel by 5.7% and 5.8% respectively, suggesting that the Xeon handles general-purpose integer operations and compression algorithms with slightly better efficiency. These are common server workloads, so the Intel part's advantages here should not be dismissed despite the overall win count favoring AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313 wins all single-core tests recorded. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 467 versus 432 (8.1% lead), R20 shows 1947 versus 1804 (7.9%), R23 shows 4637 versus 4296 (7.9%), and PassMark single-thread shows 2402 versus 2348 (2.3%).

Q: How do the two compare in multi-threaded rendering workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313 leads in every Cinebench multicore test by 7.9%. R15 multicore scores 3310 against 3067, R20 scores 13795 against 12780, and R23 scores 32847 against 30430. PassMark multithread also favors AMD by 7.9% (38644 versus 35801).

Q: Which processor is better for encryption workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313 is substantially better, scoring 31881 in PassMark data encryption against the Intel Xeon Gold 6338T's 24677, a 29.2% advantage.

Q: Where does the Intel Xeon Gold 6338T perform better?

A: The Xeon wins in PassMark extended instructions (43292 versus 33430, 22.8% lead), floating point math (90584 versus 78748, 13.1% lead), random string sorting (66495 versus 57910, 12.9% lead), integer math (152275 versus 143648, 5.7% lead), and data compression (557816 versus 525507, 5.8% lead).

Q: What is the overall average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313 has an average benchmark score of 57399, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6338T averages 60572. Both are at the 92nd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6338T has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7313 has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their core configurations. The Intel Xeon Gold 6338T packs 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7313 offers 16 cores and 32 threads. This core count difference does not translate into a performance advantage for Intel in most tests, which is a notable finding given the 50% core deficit for AMD.

Clock speeds favor the AMD part. The EPYC 7313 runs at a base clock of 3.00 GHz with a boost of 3.70 GHz. The Xeon Gold 6338T operates at 2.10 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. The higher clocks, combined with the Zen 3 architecture's efficiency, explain why the 16-core AMD processor keeps pace with or beats the 24-core Intel part in most benchmarks.

Thermal design power is comparable, with the EPYC 7313 rated at 155 TDP and the Xeon Gold 6338T at 165 TDP. Both use eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, and both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs substantially. The AMD EPYC 7313 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon Gold 6338T offers Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only). This doubles the PCIe capacity for the AMD part, a significant consideration for systems with many expansion cards or NVMe drives.

The release dates are close: the EPYC 7313 launched on March 14, 2021, and the Xeon Gold 6338T on April 5, 2021. The AMD processor has a launch MSRP of $1083, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Intel part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these processors is substantial. The AMD EPYC 7313 uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, built on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It contains 16,600 million transistors across a die size of 4x 81 mm². The Intel Xeon Gold 6338T uses the Ice Lake architecture, specifically Ice Lake-SP, built on a 10 nm process by Intel. No transistor count or die size data is recorded for the Intel part.

Cache layouts differ markedly. Both processors have 64 KB L1 cache per core. The L2 cache, however, is 512 KB per core on the AMD part versus 1 MB per core on the Intel part. The L3 cache shows the biggest divergence: the EPYC 7313 has 128 MB shared, while the Xeon Gold 6338T has only 36 MB shared. This massive L3 advantage for AMD likely contributes to its strong performance in cache-sensitive workloads like physics and prime number finding.

Both processors use the same memory type (DDR4) and memory bus (eight-channel), with identical bandwidth figures. Both lack integrated graphics and have locked multipliers. The AMD part uses Socket SP3, while the Intel part uses Socket 4189. Both are classified as Server/Workstation segments and remain in active production.

The process node difference (7 nm for AMD versus 10 nm for Intel) and the transistor count (16,600 million for AMD versus unreported for Intel) suggest the AMD chip is denser and potentially more power-efficient per transistor, though the TDP figures are close. The EPYC 7313's four-chiplet design (4x 81 mm²) contrasts with the Intel monolithic approach, though this architectural detail is not directly measured in the benchmark data.

The Verdict

The data presents two compelling but different server processors. The AMD EPYC 7313 is the clear choice for workloads dominated by physics simulation, prime number computation, encryption, and general rendering. The 236.1% physics advantage and 162.7% prime number lead are extraordinary margins that make the AMD part essentially mandatory for those specific tasks. Its consistent 7.9% edge across all Cinebench versions and PassMark multithread also makes it the safer pick for varied multithreaded server workloads.

The Intel Xeon Gold 6338T, despite losing the head-to-head win count, holds a higher average benchmark score (60572 versus 57399). This indicates that the workloads where Intel excels, particularly extended instructions, floating point math, and data compression, are heavily weighted in the overall average. Organizations running instruction-heavy code, complex mathematical computations, or compression-heavy pipelines may find the Xeon's 22.8%, 13.1%, and 5.8% advantages respectively more valuable than the AMD part's wins.

The core count difference (24 versus 16) does not automatically translate into performance superiority, as the benchmark results show. The AMD processor's higher clocks (3.70 GHz boost versus 3.40 GHz boost) and substantially larger L3 cache (128 MB versus 36 MB) compensate for its lower core count. The PCIe lane advantage (128 versus 64) also favors AMD for I/O-intensive configurations.

For a general-purpose server CPU where rendering, physics, and encryption matter, the AMD EPYC 7313 wins. For workloads prioritizing extended instruction throughput, floating point math, or compression, the Intel Xeon Gold 6338T is the better fit. The choice hinges entirely on the specific workload mix, not on any single benchmark or aggregate score.