AMD EPYC 7313P vs Intel Xeon 634 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7313P and Intel Xeon 634 sit nearly even in aggregate performance, with the EPYC posting an average benchmark score of 53,206 against the Xeon’s 52,974, a margin of 0.4% in favor of AMD. Both processors occupy the 91st percentile among all CPUs, meaning they land in the same performance tier, yet the head-to-head results reveal a clear split: the EPYC wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, while the Xeon takes four. The data shows that the EPYC 7313P is the stronger all-rounder for multi-threaded workloads, whereas the Xeon 634 counters with superior single-thread and floating-point performance. This is not a case of one chip being categorically better; it is a matter of workload alignment and platform priorities.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 7313P is the default choice for server and workstation deployments where multi-threaded throughput dominates. Its 16 cores and 32 threads outmatch the Xeon’s 12 cores and 24 threads, and that advantage shows consistently across Cinebench and Passmark multi-thread tests. The EPYC leads by 9.4% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (34,952 vs. 31,950) and by the same 9.4% margin in Passmark multi-thread (41,121 vs. 37,589). For database compression, integer math, encryption, and physics simulations, the EPYC’s leads range from 10.5% to 88%, making it the stronger workhorse for compute-heavy, parallel tasks.

The Intel Xeon 634, however, is the pick for single-thread-sensitive applications and floating-point math. It wins Passmark single-thread by 26.2% (3,567 vs. 2,634) and floating-point math by 12.1% (93,564 vs. 82,260). It also leads extended instructions by 14.4% (38,320 vs. 32,784), which suggests a niche for code that leverages newer instruction sets. If the workload is light on core count but heavy on per-core speed or SIMD-style math, the Xeon is the better fit. The data does not support calling either chip a universal winner; instead, it indicates that the EPYC 7313P suits general-purpose server consolidation, while the Xeon 634 targets specific numerical and latency-sensitive workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The EPYC 7313P uses AMD’s Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The Xeon 634, by contrast, uses Intel’s Granite Rapids architecture on a 5 nm process at Intel’s own foundry, with 12 cores and 24 threads, a base clock of 2.70 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The higher boost clock on the Xeon explains its single-thread lead, while the EPYC’s extra cores and threads drive its multi-thread dominance.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The EPYC provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon offers 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 48 MB of shared L3. The EPYC’s larger L3 pool is a clear advantage for workloads with large working sets, such as database compression and random string sorting, where it leads by 10.5% and 33.1% respectively. The Xeon’s larger per-core L2 cache (2 MB vs. 512 KB) may help with some per-thread locality, but the overall cache capacity favors AMD.

Memory and I/O also differ. The EPYC supports DDR4 memory on an eight-channel bus, while the Xeon supports DDR5 on a quad-channel bus. Both deliver the same peak memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, so the channel count difference does not translate into a bandwidth gap in the data. The EPYC offers PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Xeon offers PCIe Gen 5 with 80 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC’s higher lane count suits systems with many expansion cards or NVMe drives, while the Xeon’s Gen 5 support provides newer interconnect speed per lane. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710, and the Xeon has an unlocked multiplier while the EPYC does not. Both are active production parts with ECC memory support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 7313P wins every Cinebench test by a nearly uniform 9.4% margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 3,522 vs. 3,220; in R15 single-core, 497 vs. 454. R20 multi-core shows 14,679 vs. 13,419, and R20 single-core 2,072 vs. 1,894. R23 multi-core comes in at 34,952 vs. 31,950, with R23 single-core at 4,934 vs. 4,510. The consistency of that 9.4% delta across all Cinebench versions suggests a stable architectural advantage in both multi-threaded and lightly-threaded rendering tasks, driven by the EPYC’s extra cores and higher base clock (3.00 GHz vs. 2.70 GHz), despite the Xeon’s higher boost.

Passmark results show a more varied picture. The EPYC dominates integer math, scoring 145,558 vs. 117,664, a 23.7% lead. Prime number finding goes to the EPYC by 76.5% (346 vs. 196), and physics tests show an 88% advantage (4,229 vs. 2,250). Data compression favors the EPYC at 528,167 vs. 477,924 (10.5%), and random string sorting goes to AMD by 33.1% (62,596 vs. 47,016). Data encryption is the EPYC’s largest win at 52.3% (35,727 vs. 23,451), indicating a substantial edge in cryptographic workloads.

The Xeon 634 wins four tests, all in Passmark. Its single-thread score of 3,567 beats the EPYC’s 2,634 by 26.2%, a decisive margin that reflects the 4.60 GHz boost clock versus 3.70 GHz. Floating-point math goes to Intel at 93,564 vs. 82,260, a 12.1% lead. Extended instructions favor the Xeon at 38,320 vs. 32,784 (14.4%). These wins are concentrated in areas where per-core execution speed and newer instruction set efficiency matter more than core count. The data does not show the Xeon winning any Cinebench or multi-threaded Passmark test, which reinforces the EPYC’s broader utility for parallel workloads.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ directly: the EPYC has 16 cores and 32 threads, the Xeon has 12 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds also diverge: the EPYC runs at 3.00 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost, while the Xeon runs at 2.70 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost. The EPYC’s TDP is 155 watts, the Xeon’s is 150 watts, a negligible difference. Process node differs, with the EPYC at 7 nm (TSMC) and the Xeon at 5 nm (Intel). The EPYC’s die is composed of four 81 mm² chiplets totaling 16,600 million transistors; the Xeon uses a single 598 mm² die with no transistor count listed. Cache differs as noted: the EPYC has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 128 MB shared L3; the Xeon has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 48 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: DDR4 on an eight-channel bus for the EPYC, DDR5 on a quad-channel bus for the Xeon, with identical 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe differs: the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes, the Xeon offers Gen 5 with 80 lanes. The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the Xeon lists integrated graphics as N/A. The EPYC’s launch MSRP is $913; the Xeon’s is $499. The EPYC is locked, the Xeon is multiplier-unlocked. Release dates also differ, with the EPYC from 2021 and the Xeon from 2026.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313P leads in every multi-core benchmark. It wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 34,952 vs. 31,950 (9.4% higher) and Passmark multi-thread with 41,121 vs. 37,589 (9.4% higher).

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 634 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins four tests: Passmark single-thread (3,567 vs. 2,634, a 26.2% lead), Passmark floating-point math (93,564 vs. 82,260, a 12.1% lead), Passmark extended instructions (38,320 vs. 32,784, a 14.4% lead), and the duplicate single-thread result.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest margin is in Passmark physics, where the EPYC scores 4,229 vs. 2,250, an 88% advantage. The second-largest is in Passmark find prime numbers at 76.5% (346 vs. 196).

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: Both processors deliver identical peak memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, despite different memory types and channels: the EPYC uses DDR4 on an eight-channel bus, while the Xeon uses DDR5 on a quad-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The EPYC 7313P offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon 634 offers 80 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC provides more total lanes, but the Xeon provides a newer generation.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both occupy the 91st percentile among all CPUs. The EPYC’s average benchmark score is 53,206, and the Xeon’s is 52,974, a 0.4% difference that places them as nearest rivals in the data.