AMD EPYC 7313P vs Intel Xeon Gold 5320H Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7313P and Intel Xeon Gold 5320H are both server/workstation processors with identical 94th percentile rankings among all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are close—the EPYC 7313P averages 53,206 against the Xeon Gold's 52,431—but the head-to-head results tell a more one-sided story. Across 17 shared benchmarks, the AMD part wins 15, while the Intel part takes 2. This gap is not just in raw multi-threaded throughput; it extends to single-core, memory-bound, and even niche workloads, with only a few specific exceptions where the Intel design pulls ahead.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic margin belongs to the EPYC 7313P in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 35,727 versus the Xeon Gold's 11,462—a 211.7% advantage. That is more than triple the throughput, and it suggests the AMD part's cryptographic acceleration is far more effective. Similarly, in PassMark find prime numbers, the EPYC leads 346 to 156, a 121.8% difference. Physics simulation also heavily favors AMD: 4,229 versus 2,395, a 76.6% lead. These are not close contests; the EPYC dominates in workloads that stress integer and floating-point arithmetic.

Across the Cinebench suite, the EPYC 7313P wins every test by nearly identical margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 3,522 against 2,717 (29.6% ahead); in single-core, 497 vs 383 (29.8%). R20 multi-core: 14,679 vs 11,323 (29.6%); single-core: 2,072 vs 1,598 (29.7%). R23 multi-core: 34,952 vs 26,960 (29.6%); single-core: 4,934 vs 3,806 (29.6%). The consistency of these percentages indicates a per-clock efficiency advantage that scales across all core counts.

The EPYC also wins PassMark multithread by 29.6% (41,121 vs 31,718), integer math by 21.3% (145,558 vs 119,955), and floating-point math by 11.4% (82,260 vs 73,873). Data compression is closer but still AMD: 528,167 vs 500,828, a 5.5% edge. Single-thread performance in PassMark gives AMD a more modest 8.5% lead (2,634 vs 2,428). These results paint a picture of a processor that is not only faster in aggregate but also more efficient per thread.

The Xeon Gold 5320H claims two wins. Its most significant is PassMark extended instructions: 36,564 vs 32,784, a 10.3% advantage. This suggests that workloads using advanced instruction sets (e.g., AVX-512, if present) could see a real benefit. The other win is in random string sorting, where it edges out the EPYC by a razor-thin 0.2% (62,730 vs 62,596). That is effectively a tie, but it does show the Intel part is not universally slower.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7313P is the superior processor in nearly every measurable category. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench variants, and its average benchmark score is 1.5% higher than the Xeon Gold's (53,206 vs 52,431). The only reasons to choose the Intel Xeon Gold 5320H would be if the target workload is heavily dependent on extended instruction sets (where it leads by 10.3%) or if the near-tie in random string sorting is critical—though a 0.2% difference is within noise. For general server or workstation use, the EPYC 7313P is the clear pick based on these results. Its dominance in encryption, prime number calculation, physics, and integer math makes it the more versatile and higher-performance option.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The EPYC 7313P uses AMD's Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC, while the Xeon Gold 5320H is based on Intel's Cooper Lake architecture on a 14 nm node. This process gap helps explain the EPYC's efficiency: it packs 16 cores and 32 threads into a 155 W TDP, whereas the Xeon Gold uses 20 cores and 40 threads within a slightly lower 150 W TDP. The Intel part has a higher boost clock (4.20 GHz vs 3.70 GHz) but a lower base clock (2.40 GHz vs 3.00 GHz).

Cache configurations differ sharply. Both have 64 KB L1 per core, but the EPYC's L2 is 512 KB per core, while the Xeon Gold has 1 MB per core—a 2x difference in favor of Intel. However, the L3 cache is a different story: the EPYC has a massive 128 MB shared L3, versus the Xeon Gold's 27.5 MB. This 4.6x advantage in L3 likely contributes to the EPYC's superior performance in data-heavy workloads. Memory bandwidth also favors AMD: eight-channel DDR4 at 204.8 GB/s versus six-channel at 128.0 GB/s. The EPYC also offers PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the Xeon Gold is limited to Gen 3 with 48 lanes. The EPYC's die is composed of four 81 mm² chiplets with 16,600 million transistors; the Xeon Gold's transistor count and die size are not listed. Both support DDR4 and ECC, and neither has integrated graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5320H has 20 cores and 40 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7313P has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Which has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313P offers 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel memory bus, compared to the Intel Xeon Gold 5320H's 128.0 GB/s over six channels.

Q: Which has larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313P has 128 MB of shared L3 cache; the Intel Xeon Gold 5320H has 27.5 MB.

Q: Which wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313P scores 34,952 versus the Intel Xeon Gold 5320H's 26,960, a 29.6% advantage.

Q: What about single-thread performance?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the EPYC scores 2,634 vs 2,428 (8.5% ahead). In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC leads 4,934 vs 3,806 (29.6% higher).

Q: Does the Intel part win anything?

A: Yes, it wins in PassMark extended instructions (36,564 vs 32,784) and random string sorting (62,730 vs 62,596).

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark wins, the AMD EPYC 7313P is the clear choice for compute-intensive tasks. It dominates in Cinebench (both multi- and single-core), PassMark multithread, integer math, floating-point math, physics simulation, data compression, encryption, and prime number calculation. These workloads benefit from the EPYC's high per-core IPC, large L3 cache, and higher memory bandwidth. The Xeon Gold 5320H, despite having more cores, falls behind in multithreaded tests, indicating that its extra cores do not compensate for its lower efficiency.

The Intel part's two wins suggest specific niches. Its 10.3% lead in extended instructions points to workloads that utilize advanced instruction sets—likely AVX-512 or similar—which can accelerate certain scientific or financial simulations. The 0.2% edge in random string sorting is negligible but could be relevant if the application is heavily dependent on sorting algorithms. For general server duties, virtualization, database work, or rendering, the EPYC 7313P is the superior performer according to the data.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 16 (AMD) vs 20 (Intel)
• Threads: 32 vs 40
• Base Clock: 3.00 GHz vs 2.40 GHz
• Boost Clock: 3.70 GHz vs 4.20 GHz
• TDP: 155 W vs 150 W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP3 vs Intel Socket 4189
• Architecture: Zen 3 vs Cooper Lake
• Codename: Milan vs Cooper Lake-SP
• Generation: EPYC (Zen 3 Milan) vs Xeon Gold (Cooper Lake-SP)
• Process Node: 7 nm vs 14 nm
• Foundry: TSMC vs Intel
• Transistors: 16,600 million vs not listed
• Die Size: 4x 81 mm² vs not listed
• L2 Cache: 512 KB per core vs 1 MB per core
• L3 Cache: 128 MB shared vs 27.5 MB shared
• Memory Bus: Eight-channel vs Six-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s vs 128.0 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 4, 128 lanes vs Gen 3, 48 lanes
• Release Date: 2021-03-14 vs 2021-04-05
• Launch MSRP: $913 (AMD) vs none listed (Intel)

Both processors share the same L1 cache size, DDR4 memory support, ECC capability, and lack of integrated graphics. The EPYC 7313P also has a locked multiplier, as does the Xeon Gold. These differences underscore the EPYC's modern process node and expansive memory subsystem, while the Xeon Gold compensates with higher boost clocks and a larger per-core L2 cache.