AMD EPYC 73F3 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6342 Comparison

The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 and AMD EPYC 73F3 are both high-end server processors aimed at dual-socket and single-socket workstation platforms, respectively. Benchmark data shows the Intel part winning every single head-to-head test, but the margins are remarkably consistent and narrow. This analysis breaks down the raw scores, architectural contrasts, and the specific workload implications derived from the provided benchmark results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark suite paints a clear, albeit repetitive, picture: the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 wins all six Cinebench tests, but never by a large margin. In both multi-core and single-core workloads, the Intel processor maintains a lead of approximately 2.1% to 2.2%. This consistency suggests a fundamental performance parity between the two, with the Intel chip holding a slight edge across the board.

Looking at multi-core performance first, the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 scores 4,033 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 16,805 in R20 multi-core, and 40,014 in R23 multi-core. The AMD EPYC 73F3 trails with 3,949, 16,458, and 39,187 points respectively. In each of these tests, the deltaPct is exactly 2.1%. This means that in a heavily threaded render or simulation task, the Intel processor will finish roughly 2% faster, a difference that is often imperceptible in real-world time but consistent in synthetic benchmarks.

Single-core performance tells the same story. The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 leads with scores of 569 in R15 single-core, 2,372 in R20 single-core, and 5,649 in R23 single-core. The AMD EPYC 73F3 posts 557, 2,323, and 5,532 points, respectively. The deltaPct here is 2.2% for R15 and 2.1% for both R20 and R23. This narrow lead in single-threaded tasks indicates that the Intel Ice Lake architecture has a slight frequency-for-frequency advantage over the AMD Zen 3 part in this specific configuration, despite the AMD chip having a higher listed boost clock.

It is critical to contextualize these wins against the broader field. The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 has an average benchmark score of 11,574, placing it in the 67th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 (avg score 11,469, deltaPct 0.9) and the Intel Core i7-4790K (avg score 11,745, deltaPct -1.5). The AMD EPYC 73F3, with an average score of 11,334, is actually listed as a rival to the Intel chip, trailing by 2.1%. Conversely, the EPYC 73F3’s own nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 7402 (avg score 11,312, deltaPct 0.2) and the AMD EPYC 7452 (avg score 11,279, deltaPct 0.5). This shows that both processors are clustered tightly with other mid-range server and high-end desktop parts, and the 2% difference between them is within the noise of the broader competitive landscape.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 is the faster processor in every benchmark category tested. For users who prioritize raw Cinebench scores, the choice is clear. The Intel part delivers a consistent 2.1% to 2.2% performance advantage over the AMD EPYC 73F3 in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. There are no trade-offs in this benchmark suite; Intel wins all six tests and the overall comparison.

However, the verdict is not simply "Intel wins." The magnitude of the victory is small enough that it may be irrelevant for many workloads. A 2% difference in a 30-minute render is just 36 seconds. For applications that are not purely compute-bound on the CPU, the difference could vanish entirely. The AMD EPYC 73F3 is no slouch; it sits in the same 67th percentile of all CPUs and its average benchmark score of 11,334 is within 2.1% of the Intel part’s average.

The decision should pivot on the specific platform requirements. The AMD EPYC 73F3 offers a higher base clock (3.50 GHz vs 2.80 GHz) and boost clock (4.00 GHz vs 3.50 GHz), which could translate to better performance in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks that do not scale perfectly with core count, although the benchmark data does not show this advantage materializing in Cinebench. Given the benchmark results, the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 is the safer pick for guaranteed maximum performance in rendering and simulation. The AMD EPYC 73F3 is the pick for those who need the EPYC platform’s other attributes, accepting a tiny performance deficit.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies from their respective manufacturers. The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 is built on a 10 nm process node at Intel’s own foundries, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 uses a 7 nm process from TSMC. This process advantage allows AMD to pack more transistors: the EPYC 73F3 contains 33,200 million transistors across a die size of 8x 81 mm², whereas the Intel chip’s transistor count and die size are not listed in the data.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having 50% more cores, the Intel part only manages a 2.1% multi-core lead, which highlights the efficiency of the AMD Zen 3 architecture. The cache hierarchy also tells a story of different strategies. The Intel chip has a 1 MB L2 cache per core and a 36 MB shared L3 cache. The AMD chip has a smaller 512 KB L2 cache per core but a massive 256 MB shared L3 cache, which is likely a key factor in its ability to keep pace despite fewer cores.

Both processors support DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus, yielding an identical memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both also support ECC memory, which is essential for server reliability. The PCIe connectivity differs: the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 provides 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD EPYC 73F3 offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only). This is a major architectural difference, giving the AMD platform double the expansion capability for GPUs, NVMe drives, and network cards. The AMD EPYC 73F3 uses the AMD Socket SP3, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 4189. The AMD chip’s launch MSRP is $3521; the Intel chip’s launch MSRP is not provided.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 has the higher multi-core score in all three Cinebench tests: R15 (4,033 vs 3,949), R20 (16,805 vs 16,458), and R23 (40,014 vs 39,187). The delta is 2.1% in each test.

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 73F3 faster in any benchmark?

A: No. According to the head-to-head data, the AMD EPYC 73F3 wins zero out of six benchmarks. The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 wins all six.

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 leads in single-core tests by a margin of 2.1% to 2.2%. For example, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel chip scores 5,649 versus the AMD chip’s 5,532.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The AMD EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Do they support the same memory and PCIe configurations?

A: Both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. However, the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 provides 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes.

Q: What is the process node and foundry for each?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The AMD EPYC 73F3 uses a 7 nm process at TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 is the winner in every measured category. For users running Cinebench-style workloads—specifically 3D rendering, animation, and other tasks that scale with both core count and single-thread speed—the Intel chip will deliver marginally better results. Its 24 cores provide a theoretical advantage in heavily parallelized tasks, and the data confirms this leads to a 2.1% lead in multi-core tests.

The AMD EPYC 73F3, despite losing every benchmark, wins in the areas not covered by the Cinebench suite. Its architectural features suggest specific use cases where it would be the better choice, even if the raw scores are lower. The most significant advantage is the 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, which is double the Intel part’s 64 lanes. For a server or workstation that needs to host multiple high-bandwidth devices like GPUs for compute clusters or numerous NVMe SSDs for storage arrays, the AMD platform offers superior expandability.

The AMD EPYC 73F3 also has a higher base clock (3.50 GHz vs 2.80 GHz) and boost clock (4.00 GHz vs 3.50 GHz). While this did not translate into a single-core benchmark win, it may benefit workloads that are not perfectly represented by Cinebench, such as certain database operations or real-time transaction processing where frequency is more critical than core count. The larger 256 MB L3 cache on the AMD chip could also be a decisive factor for workloads with large, frequently accessed datasets that fit within the cache. In summary, the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 wins on pure compute benchmarks, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 wins on platform features like PCIe capacity and potentially on cache-sensitive or frequency-sensitive tasks, though the provided benchmark data does not reflect those wins.