AMD EPYC 7313 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M Comparison

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M and AMD EPYC 7313 are both server/workstation processors with identical 94th percentile rankings among all CPUs, but they approach performance from opposite directions. The Xeon packs 24 cores and 48 threads, while the EPYC uses 16 cores and 32 threads on a newer 7nm process. Head-to-head benchmark data shows the EPYC winning 14 of 17 tests, yet the Xeon posts a higher average benchmark score (58323 vs. 57399). This split reflects the EPYC's broad efficiency advantage and the Xeon's narrow but decisive wins in specific workloads. Below is a detailed breakdown of where each chip excels, what separates their architectures, and which one the data supports for typical server roles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 7313 dominates the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the EPYC scores 3310, 13795, and 32847 respectively, while the Xeon manages 2963, 12349, and 29403. That is a consistent 10.5% deficit for the Intel part across all multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests. Single-thread Cinebench R23 shows the EPYC at 4637 versus 4151, again a 10.5% gap. The pattern is clear: the EPYC is uniformly faster in rendering and general CPU stress tests.

The EPYC's lead extends into PassMark integer math (143648 vs. 129213, 10% higher), floating-point math (78748 vs. 73514, 6.6% higher), and multithread (38644 vs. 34592, 10.5% higher). Its most extreme wins come in encryption and prime-number finding. The EPYC scores 31881 in PassMark data encryption, a 44.7% advantage over the Xeon's 17625. In find prime numbers, the EPYC hits 310 versus 141, a 54.5% gap. Physics tests show a 46.7% lead (3899 vs. 2080). These are not marginal differences; the EPYC is two to three times faster in specific compute-heavy operations.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M, however, wins three tests outright. PassMark data compression: 573896 vs. 525507, a 9.2% edge. Extended instructions: 35529 vs. 33430, 6.3% higher. Random string sorting: 69236 vs. 57910, a commanding 19.6% lead. These wins show that the Xeon's larger core count and older architecture can still outperform the EPYC when the workload involves certain types of data manipulation or sorting. The single-thread PassMark test is close: 2402 vs. 2320, a 3.4% EPYC advantage, but the Xeon's compression and sorting wins are substantial enough to raise its overall average benchmark score above the EPYC's.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7313 is the clear winner for general-purpose server workloads. It takes every Cinebench test, all multi-core and single-core, plus PassMark integer math, floating-point math, multithread, physics, encryption, and prime-number finding. If a server runs a mix of database queries, scientific simulations, or compilation tasks, the EPYC's 10% to 54% advantages across these categories make it the safer choice. The encryption and prime-number results are particularly relevant for security and cryptography workloads, where the EPYC is nearly twice as fast as the Xeon.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M wins in data compression, extended instructions (SIMD-heavy code), and random string sorting. These are niche but real workloads. Data compression is common in storage and backup servers; a 9.2% lead there could matter. Random string sorting shows a 19.6% advantage, which might benefit database index maintenance or text-processing pipelines. Extended instructions, with a 6.3% edge, indicates that the Xeon's AVX-512 implementation (implied by the test name) handles certain vectorized operations better than the EPYC's Zen 3. If a workload is dominated by any of these three tasks, the Xeon is the better pick despite losing the overall benchmark count.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on different process nodes and microarchitectures. The Xeon uses Intel's 14nm Cascade Lake-SP, with 8,000 million transistors. The EPYC uses TSMC's 7nm Zen 3 (Milan), with 16,600 million transistors and a die size of 4x 81 mm². The EPYC's smaller process node and higher transistor count explain its superior efficiency per core. Core counts differ: 24 cores and 48 threads for the Xeon, versus 16 cores and 32 threads for the EPYC. Despite having 50% more cores, the Xeon loses in multi-core tests, indicating that the EPYC's per-core performance is far higher.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core, but the Xeon has 1 MB of L2 per core while the EPYC has 512 KB per core. The L3 cache is a major differentiator: the Xeon has 35.75 MB shared, while the EPYC has 128 MB shared — over 3.5 times more. This large L3 helps the EPYC in workloads that benefit from high cache capacity, such as database and virtualized environments. Memory support is identical in type (DDR4) and ECC support (both true), but the EPYC specifies an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth; the Xeon does not list a memory bus or bandwidth in the data. The EPYC also lists PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon has no PCIe information provided.

Other differences include socket and release date. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 3647, the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. The EPYC was released on 2021-03-14 and is marked as Active; the Xeon was released on 2018-12-10 and has no production status listed. TDP is similar: 165W for the Xeon, 155W for the EPYC. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz vs. 3.00 GHz, and boost clocks are 3.90 GHz vs. 3.70 GHz — the EPYC has a higher base clock but slightly lower boost.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7313 has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Which CPU has the larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313 has 128 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 35.75 MB on the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M.

Q: Which CPU performs better in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313 scores 32847, a 10.5% advantage over the Xeon's 29403.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Intel Xeon wins?

A: Yes. The Xeon wins in PassMark data compression (573896 vs. 525507), extended instructions (35529 vs. 33430), and random string sorting (69236 vs. 57910).

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD EPYC 7313?

A: The launch MSRP is $1083.

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M has an average benchmark score of 58323, while the EPYC 7313 scores 57399.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M | AMD EPYC 7313 |

|-------|---------------------------|---------------|

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 48 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.90 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 165 W | 155 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 3647 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Cascade Lake | Zen 3 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 16,600 million |

| Die Size | (not specified) | 4x 81 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 35.75 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | (not specified) | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | (not specified) | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | (not specified) | Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Release Date | 2018-12-10 | 2021-03-14 |

| Production Status | (not specified) | Active |

| Launch MSRP | (not specified) | $1083 |

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7313 wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench test and most PassMark categories. Its advantages range from 3.4% in single-thread to 54.5% in prime-number finding. For general server workloads — virtualization, databases, encryption, scientific computing — the EPYC is the stronger choice. The 128 MB L3 cache, eight-channel memory bandwidth, and 7nm process give it a per-core efficiency that the Xeon's 24 cores cannot overcome. The EPYC also has a higher base clock and a lower TDP, which can translate to better power efficiency in dense deployments.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M is not without merit. Its wins in data compression, extended instructions, and random string sorting show that it handles specific data-manipulation tasks faster than the EPYC. If a server's primary workload is compression, SIMD-heavy code, or sorting, the Xeon's 9.2% to 19.6% leads are meaningful. Additionally, the Xeon has a higher average benchmark score (58323 vs. 57399), driven by those large wins, and it offers more cores and threads (24/48 vs. 16/32) for heavily threaded workloads that scale linearly — though the EPYC still beats it in multithread tests. For most buyers, the EPYC's broad dominance makes it the default recommendation. The Xeon is a niche pick for workloads that match its three winning categories.