AMD EPYC 73F3 vs Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a dominant result. AMD EPYC 73F3 wins every single head-to-head comparison, six out of six recorded tests. The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U does not record a single win in the database. The margins are substantial, with the AMD processor leading by roughly 78.4% to 78.5% across all Cinebench tests. This is not a close contest; it is a categorical performance gap.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 73F3 scores 39,187 points against the Xeon Bronze 3408U's 8,473 points. The delta is -78.4%. This means the AMD part delivers nearly 4.6 times the multi-threaded rendering performance. The single-core picture is equally lopsided. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 73F3 records 5,532 points, while the Intel chip manages 1,196 points, a -78.4% difference. The AMD processor is over 4.6 times faster in single-threaded work as well.

The pattern repeats in older Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the scores are 16,458 for the EPYC 73F3 and 3,558 for the Xeon Bronze 3408U, again a -78.4% delta. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the AMD chip scores 2,323 versus 502 for Intel, a -78.4% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 3,949 for AMD and 853 for Intel, while single-core shows 557 versus 120. Each delta is -78.4% or -78.5%.

The data indicates that the EPYC 73F3 is not merely ahead in one workload type. It leads in both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench tests. The consistency of the percentage gap, hovering around 78.4%, suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U, despite having a lower core count, does not compensate with higher clock speeds or better per-core efficiency in these measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher Cinebench R23 multi-core score?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 scores 39,187 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U scores 8,473. The AMD processor leads by a -78.4% delta, meaning it is roughly 4.6 times faster.

Q: What is the single-threaded performance difference in Cinebench R20?

A: The EPYC 73F3 records 2,323 points in Cinebench R20 single-core, compared to 502 points for the Xeon Bronze 3408U. This is a -78.4% difference, placing the AMD chip far ahead in single-threaded workloads.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor have in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 wins all six head-to-head benchmark tests. The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U records zero wins in the comparison.

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

A: The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U has an average benchmark score of 12,019, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 has an average benchmark score of 11,334. Despite the lower average, the EPYC wins every Cinebench test due to the specific workload composition.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Both processors are in the 67th percentile against all CPUs in the database. They are positioned similarly relative to the broader CPU landscape, even though their head-to-head results differ dramatically.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U has a boost clock of 1.90 GHz. This clock advantage contributes to the AMD processor's single-threaded wins.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 73F3 wins everywhere in the recorded benchmarks. It takes all six Cinebench tests, both multi-core and single-core variants across R15, R20, and R23. The use-case split is therefore clear: any workload relying on Cinebench-style rendering or CPU compute goes to the AMD part. Multi-threaded rendering, 3D modeling, and video encoding that scale with cores and threads will favor the EPYC 73F3 heavily. Its 16 cores and 32 threads versus the Intel's 8 cores and 8 threads provide a structural advantage in parallel workloads.

Single-threaded performance also belongs to the AMD processor. The EPYC 73F3's boost clock of 4.00 GHz versus the Intel's 1.90 GHz explains the single-core wins. Applications that depend on high per-thread speed, such as legacy database queries or lightly threaded simulation tools, will prefer the AMD chip.

The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U does have a niche based on platform features rather than raw performance. It supports DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, which is higher than the EPYC 73F3's 204.8 GB/s DDR4 bandwidth. For memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks, the Intel part offers a measured advantage in theoretical throughput. It also uses PCIe Gen 5 with 80 lanes, while the AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The Intel platform is newer in that regard. However, no benchmark in the database directly measures memory or PCIe performance, so these are qualitative advantages only.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U has 8 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel base clock is 1.80 GHz with a boost clock of 1.90 GHz. The AMD base clock is 3.50 GHz with a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The Intel TDP is 125 watts, while the AMD TDP is 240 watts.

Memory support diverges. The Intel chip uses DDR5 with an eight-channel memory bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD chip uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe capability also differs: Intel provides Gen 5 with 80 lanes (CPU only), while AMD provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only).

The sockets are incompatible. Intel uses Socket 4677, AMD uses Socket SP3. The launch MSRP differs as well: Intel at $425, AMD at $3521. The release dates are also different, with Intel launching on 2023-01-09 and AMD on 2021-03-14.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. Intel builds the Xeon Bronze 3408U on Sapphire Rapids, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. AMD builds the EPYC 73F3 on Zen 3 (Milan), fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The process node advantage goes to AMD, which typically enables higher clock speeds and better efficiency per watt.

Cache layouts differ sharply. The Intel chip has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 22.5 MB of L3 cache. The AMD chip has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a large 256 MB shared L3 cache. The AMD L3 cache is over ten times larger than Intel's, which helps with data reuse and multi-threaded workloads.

The AMD processor uses a chiplet design, indicated by its 8x 81 mm² die size and 33,200 million transistors. Intel does not report transistor count or die size in the database. The AMD architecture also features a higher core count and simultaneous multithreading (32 threads versus 8), which directly drives its multi-core benchmark wins.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 73F3 is the superior processor in every recorded Cinebench benchmark. It wins all six head-to-head tests with deltas of approximately -78.4% to -78.5%. For any user prioritizing raw CPU performance in rendering, simulation, or compute-heavy server workloads, the EPYC 73F3 is the clear choice. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, and 4.00 GHz boost clock deliver roughly 4.6 times the multi-core score and 4.6 times the single-core score of the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U.

The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U makes sense only in specific platform scenarios. It offers DDR5 memory with higher bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s) and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity. Its launch MSRP of $425 is far below the AMD's $3521, but price analysis is outside the scope of this comparison. The Intel chip also draws less power at 125 watts TDP versus 240 watts, which may matter in power-constrained racks.

For high-throughput compute, the AMD EPYC 73F3 wins decisively. For memory bandwidth or PCIe Gen 5 adoption, the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U has platform advantages that are not reflected in the Cinebench scores. The database records zero wins for Intel, so any performance-based selection should favor AMD. The 67th percentile standing of both processors against all CPUs indicates they are comparable in overall market position, but head-to-head measurements show a massive performance gulf in favor of the EPYC 73F3.