AMD EPYC 73F3 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6314U Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data presents a clear, though narrow, overall winner. The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U takes all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with a consistent 6.1% margin over the AMD EPYC 73F3 in every single workload. This uniformity is striking: from single-core R15 to multi-core R23, the Intel part wins by the exact same relative amount. The database shows the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U holds an average benchmark score of 12026, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 sits at 11334, a difference of roughly 6.1% that mirrors the head-to-head results.

For buyers, the choice depends on what matters more: raw throughput or core count. The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U offers 32 cores and 64 threads, double the EPYC 73F3's 16 cores and 32 threads, yet it still manages to outperform the AMD chip in multi-threaded tests. That means the Intel part delivers higher scores per core, and its total score advantage comes despite having fewer physical resources to draw upon. The AMD EPYC 73F3, however, carries a higher base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, compared to the Intel's 2.30 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. The data suggests the AMD chip relies on frequency to close the gap, but it does not close it enough.

The percentile ranking does not separate them: both sit at the 67th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The nearest rivals tell a different story for each. The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U is bracketed by the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen 5 3500X (0.2% behind), the Intel Core i3-12100 (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Core i7-7700 (0.9% behind). The AMD EPYC 73F3 sits near the AMD EPYC 7402 (0.2% ahead), the Intel Core i5-1145G7 (0.5% ahead), the AMD EPYC 7452 (0.5% ahead), and the Intel Core i3-1305U (1.2% ahead). The Xeon's rivals are tighter in margin, while the EPYC's nearest competitors are slightly more distant, implying the AMD part has less company at its exact performance level.

The verdict from the data: the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U is the pick for anyone who wants the higher absolute scores in Cinebench and does not mind a 32-core, 64-thread configuration that reaches 3.40 GHz. The AMD EPYC 73F3 is the pick for workloads that favor higher clocks per core, though the benchmark results do not show it winning any test. The EPYC's 16 cores and 32 threads are half the Intel's, and its 256 MB of shared L3 cache is over five times larger, but none of that translates into a benchmark victory in the recorded data.

Where Each One Wins

Looking strictly at the head-to-head results, the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U wins every single test. There is no workload in the recorded Cinebench suite where the AMD EPYC 73F3 takes a lead. The Intel part wins Cinebench R15 multicore with 4190 against 3949, R15 singlecore with 591 against 557, R20 multicore with 17462 against 16458, R20 singlecore with 2464 against 2323, R23 multicore with 41578 against 39187, and R23 singlecore with 5869 against 5532. The delta is 6.1% in all six cases, which suggests a consistent architectural or frequency-related advantage rather than a workload-specific one.

The use-case split, therefore, is not about which benchmark each wins, but about what each processor offers beyond the scores. The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U provides 32 cores and 64 threads, which is double the thread count of the EPYC 73F3. For heavily parallel workloads that scale beyond 32 threads, the Intel part has more headroom, even though its per-core frequency is lower. The AMD EPYC 73F3, with 16 cores and 32 threads, is a lower-core-count part, but it runs at a higher base and boost clock. That higher frequency does narrow the gap in single-core tests, but the data shows it still loses by 6.1% there as well.

The AMD part's 256 MB of shared L3 cache is a notable feature, but the benchmark results do not reveal any workload where that cache size produces a win. The Intel part's 48 MB of shared L3 is much smaller, yet it still leads in all multi-threaded tests. So the data implies that the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U is the better choice for raw Cinebench throughput, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 might be considered for its higher clock speeds and larger cache, but no recorded benchmark supports a practical advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry, using the Ice Lake-SP architecture with the Ice Lake codename. The AMD EPYC 73F3 is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, using the Zen 3 architecture with the Milan codename. The process node difference is significant: 7 nm is smaller than 10 nm, which typically allows for higher transistor density and potentially better power efficiency, though the EPYC's TDP is listed at 240 watts versus the Intel's 205 watts.

The core counts differ dramatically. The Intel part has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD part has 16 cores and 32 threads. The cache hierarchy is also different. The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 48 MB of shared L3. The AMD EPYC 73F3 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. The AMD part's L3 cache is over five times larger, and its L2 is half the size per core. The L1 is identical at 64 KB per core.

Memory support is the same in terms of type and bus width: both support DDR4 with eight-channel memory and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both also support ECC memory. The PCIe lanes differ: the Intel part offers Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD part offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). That is a doubling of PCIe lanes for the AMD chip, which could matter for systems with many GPUs or NVMe drives, though the benchmark data does not capture that.

The sockets are different: Intel Socket 4189 for the Xeon, AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC. The release dates are close, with the AMD part launching on March 14, 2021, and the Intel part on April 5, 2021. The AMD EPYC 73F3 has a launch MSRP of $3521, while the Intel part has no listed launch MSRP in the database. Both are marked as active production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part's transistor count is listed at 33,200 million, with a die size of 8x 81 mm², while the Intel part has no transistor or die size data recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U has an average benchmark score of 12026, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 has 11334, a difference of about 6.1%.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 73F3 win any Cinebench test?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U wins all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core), with a 6.1% margin in each.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel part has double the cores and threads.

Q: What are the clock speeds of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The AMD EPYC 73F3 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U has 48 MB. The AMD part's L3 is more than five times larger.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U has a TDP of 205 watts, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 has a TDP of 240 watts. The AMD part draws 35 watts more.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkable for their consistency. Every test, from Cinebench R15 to R23, shows the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U winning by exactly 6.1%. The largest absolute margin comes in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Intel scores 41578 against the AMD's 39187, a difference of 2391 points. In R23 single-core, the Intel scores 5869 against 5532, a gap of 337 points. The R20 multicore test shows 17462 versus 16458, a difference of 1004 points, while R20 single-core shows 2464 versus 2323, a gap of 141 points. The R15 tests follow the same pattern: multicore at 4190 versus 3949, a difference of 241 points, and single-core at 591 versus 557, a difference of 34 points.

The fact that the delta is identical at 6.1% across all six tests suggests the performance gap is not workload-dependent. It is not that the Intel part wins by more in multi-core and less in single-core; it wins by the same relative amount everywhere. This implies a fundamental per-clock or per-instruction advantage for the Intel architecture in Cinebench, despite the AMD part's higher clock speeds. The AMD EPYC 73F3 boosts to 4.00 GHz, which is 0.60 GHz higher than the Intel's 3.40 GHz boost, yet it still loses single-core tests by 6.1%. That means the Intel part is executing more work per clock cycle in these tests, or the Cinebench workload favors the Intel's core design.

The multi-core results are even more telling. The Intel part has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD part has 16 cores and 32 threads. With double the thread count, the Intel part should theoretically have a large advantage in multi-threaded tests, but the actual margin is the same 6.1%. This suggests the AMD part's higher frequency and larger L3 cache are helping it close what would otherwise be a much larger gap. The AMD EPYC 73F3's 256 MB of L3 likely reduces memory latency for working sets that fit in cache, while the Intel part's 48 MB L3 is smaller but still sufficient for these tests. The data does not support any scenario where the AMD part wins, but it does show that the EPYC's per-core performance is competitive enough to keep the multi-core gap small despite having half the cores.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification, though some areas match. The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U uses Intel Socket 4189, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 uses AMD Socket SP3. The architecture is Ice Lake (Ice Lake-SP) for Intel and Zen 3 (Milan) for AMD. The process node is 10 nm at Intel's foundry for the Xeon, and 7 nm at TSMC for the EPYC. The transistor count is recorded only for the AMD part at 33,200 million, with a die size of 8x 81 mm²; no such data exists for the Intel part.

Core and thread counts are a major split: 32 cores and 64 threads for Intel, versus 16 cores and 32 threads for AMD. Base clocks are 2.30 GHz for Intel and 3.50 GHz for AMD. Boost clocks are 3.40 GHz for Intel and 4.00 GHz for AMD. The TDP is 205 watts for Intel and 240 watts for AMD. The cache hierarchy differs: L1 is 64 KB per core for both, but L2 is 1 MB per core for Intel and 512 KB per core for AMD, and L3 is 48 MB shared for Intel and 256 MB shared for AMD.

Memory support is identical: DDR4, eight-channel, 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC support on both. The PCIe configuration differs: Intel offers Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only), while AMD offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The release date is March 14, 2021, for the AMD part and April 5, 2021, for the Intel part. The AMD EPYC 73F3 has a launch MSRP of $3521, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U has no launch MSRP listed. Both are in active production, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both target the server/workstation market segment. The part numbers are SRKHLCD8068904570101 for Intel and 100-000000321100-100000321WOF for AMD.