CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7401P and Intel Xeon E-2388G present a stark contrast in design philosophy, and the benchmark data reflects that divergence clearly. The EPYC 7401P, a 24-core Naples part from the 7001 series, leans on raw core count to dominate threaded workloads, while the Xeon E-2388G, a Rocket Lake-E chip, counters with a much higher boost clock and newer platform features. The aggregate data shows a near-tie, the EPYC averages 5814 across all tests against the Xeon's 5805, but that headline number masks wildly different performance profiles in specific applications. This analysis breaks down where each processor wins, why, and who should buy which.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the EPYC 7401P's absolute sweep of the Cinebench suite. Across all six Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core, the AMD part wins by a uniform 18.7% delta. In multi-core R23, the EPYC scores 23660 against the Xeon's 19939, a gap that directly reflects its 24 cores and 48 threads versus the Intel's 8 cores and 16 threads. Even in single-core R23, the EPYC's 3340 beats the Xeon's 2814, which is counterintuitive given the Intel chip's 5.10 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC's 3.00 GHz. The data shows that the EPYC's Zen architecture, despite its lower clock speed, delivers more instructions per clock in this workload. The consistency of the 18.7% delta across every Cinebench version suggests this is a fundamental architectural advantage, not a workload-specific quirk.

The tables turn decisively in Geekbench, where the Intel Xeon E-2388G posts a dominant victory. In Geekbench multi-core, the Xeon scores 9615 against the EPYC's 4666, a 51.5% deficit for AMD. The single-core Geekbench result is even more lopsided: the Xeon's 2227 crushes the EPYC's 787, a 64.7% gap. This is the single largest performance differential in the entire dataset. The Geekbench suite appears to reward the Xeon's combination of a 5.10 GHz boost clock and its newer Rocket Lake architecture, which features a redesigned core that the EPYC's older Zen design simply cannot match on a per-thread basis. The data indicates that Geekbench is far more sensitive to clock speed and core generation than to core count, which explains why the 8-core Xeon outperforms the 24-core EPYC so dramatically.

The overall win count, 6 for the EPYC, 2 for the Xeon, favors AMD, but the magnitude of the losses matters more. The EPYC's wins are all narrow, consistent 18.7% margins, while the Xeon's wins are crushing 51.5% and 64.7% blowouts. The average benchmark score of 5814 for the EPYC versus 5805 for the Xeon confirms that the two processors are statistically equivalent on average, despite their wildly different workload-specific behavior. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the EPYC's closest competitor is the Xeon itself with a 0.2% delta, while the Xeon's closest rival is the EPYC with a -0.2% delta. Both chips sit at the 61st percentile of all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same overall performance tier even though they achieve it through opposite design strategies.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 7401P wins decisively with a score of 23660 versus the Intel Xeon E-2388G's 19939, a 18.7% advantage. This is the EPYC's largest multi-core win in the Cinebench suite.

Q: How large is the Geekbench single-core gap between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2388G wins by 64.7%, scoring 2227 against the EPYC 7401P's 787. This is the biggest performance margin in any benchmark between the two processors.

Q: Are these CPUs in the same overall performance tier?

A: Yes. Both have a percentileVsAllCpus of 61, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 5814 for the EPYC and 5805 for the Xeon, a difference of just 0.2%.

Q: Does the EPYC 7401P win every Cinebench test?

A: Yes, the data shows the EPYC wins all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single and multi-core) by exactly 18.7% each time. The Intel part does not win a single Cinebench test.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two processors?

A: The AMD EPYC 7401P has a TDP of 170 watts, while the Intel Xeon E-2388G has a TDP of 95 watts. The Intel part draws significantly less power despite its higher clock speeds.

Q: Which CPU supports more memory channels?

A: The AMD EPYC 7401P supports eight-channel DDR4 memory, while the Intel Xeon E-2388G supports dual-channel DDR4. This gives the EPYC a theoretical memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s versus the Xeon's 51.2 GB/s.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload type. The AMD EPYC 7401P is the pick for anyone running heavily threaded, multi-core applications, as it wins all six Cinebench tests by 18.7% and offers 24 cores versus the Intel's 8. The EPYC's 48 threads and 64 MB of shared L3 cache make it the superior option for virtualization, database workloads, or any environment where parallel throughput is the bottleneck. Its eight-channel memory bus, delivering 170.6 GB/s, further cements its position for memory-bandwidth-intensive tasks.

The Intel Xeon E-2388G is the choice for single-threaded performance and lower power consumption. Its Geekbench single-core score of 2227 is more than 2.8 times the EPYC's 787, and its multi-core Geekbench score of 9615 is more than double the EPYC's 4666. The Xeon also consumes 75 fewer watts (95 TDP versus 170 TDP), making it more suitable for dense server deployments where power and cooling are at a premium. The Xeon's 5.10 GHz boost clock is the driving factor behind these wins, and its integrated UHD Graphics P750 provides a display output that the EPYC lacks.

The average benchmark scores tell the real story: these are evenly matched processors that excel in opposing domains. The EPYC's 5814 average edges out the Xeon's 5805 by a single point, but that 0.2% delta is noise. The 64.7% single-core gap in Geekbench is the most consequential number in this comparison, as it signals that the Xeon will feel dramatically faster in any latency-sensitive, low-thread-count application. The EPYC's wins are consistent but never exceed 18.7%, meaning its advantage in multi-core is real but less extreme than the Xeon's advantage in single-core.

Specification Differences

The core count difference is the most obvious spec divergence: the EPYC 7401P packs 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Xeon E-2388G offers 8 cores and 16 threads. Clock speeds favor Intel dramatically, with the Xeon boosting to 5.10 GHz against the EPYC's 3.00 GHz maximum, though the EPYC has a higher base clock of 2000 MHz versus the Xeon's 3200 MHz. TDP is another major split: the EPYC draws 170 watts, the Xeon just 95 watts. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1200. Memory channels differ massively: the EPYC supports eight-channel DDR4 with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, versus the Xeon's dual-channel DDR4 at 51.2 GB/s. PCIe generation also differs, with the EPYC on Gen 3 and the Xeon on Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Xeon includes integrated UHD Graphics P750, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The EPYC's multiplier is unlocked; the Xeon's is not. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $539, while the EPYC has no listed launch MSRP. The EPYC's part number is PS740PBEVHCAF, and the Xeon's is SRKMZ.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The EPYC 7401P is based on AMD's Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, from the EPYC 7001 series, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It uses 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The Xeon E-2388G is built on Intel's Rocket Lake architecture, specifically Rocket Lake-E, from the Xeon E-2300 series, on a 14 nm process at Intel, with a 276 mm² die size. The EPYC's cache layout includes 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's cache is smaller: 80 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Both support ECC memory. The EPYC was released in 2017, while the Xeon came in 2021. The EPYC's Zen architecture was designed from the ground up for server density with 24 cores, while the Xeon's Rocket Lake architecture focuses on high per-core performance with a smaller core count. The EPYC's eight-channel memory controller is a direct result of its server-first design, whereas the Xeon's dual-channel controller reflects its workstation-oriented positioning. The Xeon's integrated graphics and Gen 4 PCIe support are features that the older EPYC simply does not offer.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7401P wins in every Cinebench test, which makes it the clear choice for rendering, 3D modeling, and other workloads that scale with core count. Its 24 cores and 48 threads, combined with 64 MB of L3 cache, provide a 18.7% advantage in both single and multi-core Cinebench tests, indicating a well-balanced architecture that handles both threaded and lightly-threaded render tasks effectively. The EPYC's eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth makes it superior for data-heavy server workloads like large databases, virtualization hosts, or scientific computing that requires moving massive amounts of data between RAM and CPU. Its 170-watt TDP, while higher, buys substantial parallel throughput that justifies the power draw in compute-dense environments.

The Intel Xeon E-2388G wins decisively in Geekbench, making it the pick for single-threaded performance and low-latency applications. Its 64.7% single-core Geekbench advantage over the EPYC means it will feel snappier in everyday server tasks, web serving, or any workload that cannot leverage many threads. The Xeon's 51.5% multi-core Geekbench win is particularly notable because it shows the Intel chip can beat the EPYC even in multi-threaded scenarios within that benchmark suite, likely due to its 5.10 GHz boost clock. The Xeon's 95-watt TDP makes it the better choice for power-constrained environments, and its Gen 4 PCIe support and integrated UHD Graphics P750 add modern connectivity and display capabilities that the EPYC lacks. For a single-socket workstation running a mix of general-purpose applications, the Xeon's combination of lower power, higher clocks, and newer platform features makes it the more versatile daily driver.