AMD EPYC 7371 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark results reveal a remarkably one-sided performance landscape. The AMD EPYC 7371 wins all six head-to-head comparisons across the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 suites, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads. There is no benchmark category in the database where the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 takes the lead. The AMD processor's advantage is consistent, with deltas ranging from 8.2% to 8.5% depending on the specific test.

For single-threaded tasks, the EPYC 7371's higher base clock of 3.10 GHz compared to the Xeon's 2.40 GHz, combined with its 3.80 GHz boost clock (the Xeon boosts to 3.90 GHz), appears to translate into a meaningful edge. The single-core Cinebench R23 score of 3693 for AMD versus 3412 for Intel represents an 8.2% gap, a substantial margin for workloads that depend on per-core performance. This suggests the EPYC 7371 is better suited for lightly threaded applications, database queries, and legacy software that does not scale across many cores.

In multi-core scenarios, the EPYC 7371 also prevails despite having only 16 cores and 32 threads compared to the Xeon's 24 cores and 48 threads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 26164 for AMD versus 24173 for Intel, an 8.2% difference, indicates that AMD's Zen architecture, with its 64 MB shared L3 cache and eight-channel memory bus delivering 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, compensates for the core count disadvantage. The Xeon's larger core count does not translate into a win, which raises questions about scaling efficiency and memory subsystem performance in this comparison.

The average benchmark score further underscores the divide. The EPYC 7371 records an average score of 7568 across all tests, while the Xeon Platinum 8260 averages 6992. Both processors sit at the 63rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, placing them in the same overall performance tier, yet the AMD part consistently finishes ahead in every measured workload. This pattern suggests that the EPYC 7371's architectural efficiency, not raw core count, drives its superiority in these specific benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 scores 3693, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 scores 3412. The AMD part leads by 8.2% in this test.

Q: How many cores and threads does each CPU offer?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 has 24 cores and 48 threads, giving it 50% more cores and 50% more threads.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the Intel processor. The AMD EPYC 7371 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two CPUs?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 averages 7568 points, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 averages 6992 points, a difference of 576 points in favor of AMD.

Q: Which CPU has a higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 has a base clock of 3.10 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260's 2.40 GHz base clock.

Q: Are both CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both sit at the 63rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, yet the AMD part finishes ahead in every individual benchmark.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant victory for the AMD EPYC 7371 occurs in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where it scores 372 versus the Xeon's 343, an 8.5% delta. This is the largest percentage advantage in any comparison. The R15 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: AMD scores 2637, Intel scores 2436, an 8.3% difference. These older benchmarks, which are less sensitive to memory bandwidth and more dependent on raw clock speed and IPC, favor the EPYC 7371's higher base frequency and Zen architecture.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the results tighten slightly but remain consistent. The multi-core test shows AMD at 10988 and Intel at 10152, an 8.2% delta. The single-core test shows AMD at 1551 and Intel at 1433, also an 8.2% delta. The consistency of these margins across different workload types suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a quirk of any particular test.

The Cinebench R23 results, representing the most modern rendering workload in the database, follow the same trend. AMD scores 26164 in multi-core and 3693 in single-core. Intel scores 24173 and 3412 respectively. Both deltas sit at 8.2%. The fact that the advantage persists and remains stable across three generations of Cinebench indicates that the EPYC 7371's performance edge is not diminishing with newer, more demanding benchmarks.

The database also shows interesting comparisons with nearby rivals. The EPYC 7371's average score of 7568 places it nearly identical to the Intel Core i5-6500 (7569, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX (7578, -0.1% delta). The Xeon Platinum 8260's average of 6992 sits close to the Intel Pentium Gold G6400 (6969, 0.3% delta) and the Intel Core i9-7980XE (7018, -0.4% delta). These proximity points suggest that despite the Xeon's higher core count, its measured performance aligns more closely with lower-tier desktop parts, while the EPYC 7371 competes with high-end desktop processors.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification gap is in core and thread counts. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 offers 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7371 provides 16 cores and 32 threads. This 8-core, 16-thread advantage for Intel does not produce a performance win in any benchmark, which is a notable finding for server workload planning.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The AMD part runs at a 3.10 GHz base clock and 3.80 GHz boost clock. The Intel part runs at 2.40 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. While the Xeon has a slightly higher boost ceiling, the EPYC 7371's much higher base clock likely contributes to its consistent single-core wins.

Thermal design power is nearly identical: 170 watts for AMD and 165 watts for Intel. This means the EPYC 7371 delivers superior benchmark performance while consuming only 5 watts more, a negligible difference in server environments.

The memory subsystem differs in documentation. The AMD EPYC 7371 lists an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 does not have memory bus or bandwidth figures recorded in the database, though both support DDR4 memory and ECC.

The sockets are completely different: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC 7371 and Intel Socket 3647 for the Xeon Platinum 8260. This means platform choices are mutually exclusive and cannot be swapped. The AMD part also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part is locked, indicating overclocking potential on the EPYC side, though server motherboards rarely expose such features.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7371 belongs to the EPYC 7001 series, codenamed Naples, and uses the Zen architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The die contains 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 uses the Cascade Lake architecture, specifically Cascade Lake-SP, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by Intel. The Intel die contains 8,000 million transistors, though no die size is recorded in the database.

Cache configurations show distinct design philosophies. The AMD part features 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a 64 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel part features 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a 35.75 MB shared L3 cache. AMD's larger L3 pool, nearly double that of Intel, likely contributes to its multi-core performance despite fewer cores, as more data can reside closer to the execution units.

Both processors lack integrated graphics and target the server/workstation market segment. The AMD part is marked as active in production, while the Intel part has no production status recorded. Release dates are close: the EPYC 7371 launched on November 15, 2018, and the Xeon Platinum 8260 launched on December 10, 2018, less than a month apart.

The Intel processor's transistor count of 8,000 million versus AMD's 4,800 million suggests a more complex die, yet the benchmark data does not reflect an advantage from this additional hardware. The Cascade Lake architecture's higher core count and transistor budget do not overcome the Zen design's efficiency in these rendering workloads.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most server and workstation workloads: the AMD EPYC 7371. It wins every benchmark in the database, with margins between 8.2% and 8.5%. Its higher base clock, larger shared L3 cache, and eight-channel memory bus delivering 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth combine to overcome the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260's 50% core advantage.

For single-threaded applications, the EPYC 7371 is the better pick. The 8.2% single-core advantage in Cinebench R23 and 8.5% in R15 indicates that per-core performance is a clear strength. The Xeon's lower base clock of 2.40 GHz likely hampers it in workloads that cannot fully utilize all 24 cores.

For multi-threaded workloads, the EPYC 7371 still wins, but the margin is narrower and more surprising given the core count difference. The 8.2% multi-core advantage in R23 suggests that AMD's architecture scales efficiently with its 16 cores, while the Xeon's 24 cores may suffer from diminishing returns or memory bandwidth constraints. The database does not record memory bandwidth for the Intel part, which may be a factor.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 would only be preferable in scenarios that specifically require more physical cores for licensing or software reasons, since the database shows no performance benefit from its 24-core configuration. Its slightly lower TDP of 165 watts versus 170 watts is a marginal consideration.

The verdict from the recorded measurements is straightforward: the AMD EPYC 7371 delivers superior performance across all tested benchmarks, at nearly the same power consumption, and with a smaller core count. Organizations evaluating these two server processors should prioritize the EPYC 7371 based on the data, unless specific platform requirements or software licensing models mandate the Intel Socket 3647 platform. The 63rd percentile ranking for both CPUs confirms they occupy the same performance tier in the broader database, but within that tier, the AMD part is consistently faster.