AMD EPYC 7402 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6314U Comparison

Intel Xeon Gold 6314U and AMD EPYC 7402 are both server-class processors with active production status, but the benchmark data from the database shows a consistent pattern: the Intel part wins every recorded Cinebench test, and the AMD part counters with platform-level advantages. The recorded measurements place the Xeon Gold 6314U at the 67th percentile of all CPUs, while the EPYC 7402 sits at the 66th percentile, a narrow overall gap that does not reflect the consistency of the head-to-head results. The average benchmark score for the Intel processor is 12026, against 11312 for the AMD, a difference that aligns with the per-test deltas.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records six Cinebench comparisons between these two processors, and the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U wins all six with a uniform delta of 6.3%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel scores 4190 against the AMD’s 3942. The single-core result in the same test is 591 versus 556, again favoring Intel. Moving to R20, the multi-core score is 17462 for Intel and 16426 for AMD, while single-core is 2464 versus 2318. In the latest recorded test, Cinebench R23, the Intel part scores 41578 multi-core and 5869 single-core, while the EPYC 7402 scores 39110 and 5521 respectively. Every delta is exactly 6.3%, meaning the relative performance gap is identical across all six workloads, regardless of whether the test scales across all cores or exercises only one.

This uniform delta is notable because it suggests the difference is not tied to core count scaling or memory bandwidth saturation, but rather to per-core efficiency. The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7402 has 24 cores and 48 threads, so the Intel part has a 33% core count advantage. Yet the multi-core score advantage is only 6.3%, which indicates that the AMD architecture, despite fewer cores, is closing the gap through higher per-core throughput. The single-core tests also show a 6.3% lead for Intel, so the gap in raw core performance is consistent with the multi-core results. This means the Intel part’s advantage is not amplified by its extra cores; it is a flat per-thread advantage that happens to carry over to full-socket workloads.

For context, the nearest rivals in the database for the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U are the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U (average score 12019, delta 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 5 3500X (12000, delta 0.2%), the Intel Core i3-12100 (12054, delta -0.2%), and the Intel Core i7-7700 (11914, delta 0.9%). These rivals are all within roughly 1% of the Xeon’s average score, which places it in a dense performance cluster. The AMD EPYC 7402’s nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 73F3 (11334, delta -0.2%), the Intel Core i5-1145G7 (11279, delta 0.3%), the AMD EPYC 7452 (11279, delta 0.3%), and the Intel Core i3-1305U (11200, delta 1%). The EPYC 7402’s average score of 11312 is about 6% below the Xeon’s 12026, matching the head-to-head deltas. The data does not show any test where the AMD part wins, so the head-to-head section is one-sided by recorded measurements.

The Verdict

From the recorded data alone, the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U is the faster processor in every measured Cinebench workload. Buyers who prioritize raw multi-threaded rendering performance, as captured by Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, should select the Intel part, since it leads by 6.3% in each case. The Intel part also leads single-core performance by the same margin, so any workload that depends on per-thread speed will follow the same pattern. The AMD EPYC 7402 is not without merit, but its advantages do not show up in the Cinebench suite. The database shows the AMD part has a larger PCIe lane count (128 lanes versus 64), a smaller process node (7 nm versus 10 nm), and a larger total L3 cache (128 MB versus 48 MB). However, none of these features translate into a Cinebench win in the recorded data. The verdict is straightforward: for compute throughput as measured by Cinebench, the Xeon Gold 6314U is the pick. For workloads that depend on PCIe expansion, cache capacity, or a more recent manufacturing process, the EPYC 7402 offers those attributes, but the benchmark evidence does not show a performance advantage in the tested suite.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U wins with a score of 41578 against the AMD EPYC 7402’s 39110, a delta of 6.3%.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap the same as the multi-core gap?

A: Yes, the delta is 6.3% in all six recorded tests, including both single-core and multi-core runs.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7402 have more cores than the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U?

A: No, the Intel part has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD part has 24 cores and 48 threads.

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

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U has an average benchmark score of 12026, and the AMD EPYC 7402 has an average score of 11312.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does each processor support?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U supports 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD EPYC 7402 supports 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only).

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U and the AMD EPYC 7402 support ECC memory, and both use DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several core specifications. The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7402 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The base clock is higher on the AMD part at 2.80 GHz versus 2.30 GHz, but the boost clock is higher on the Intel part at 3.40 GHz versus 3.35 GHz. Thermal design power differs as well: the Intel part is rated at 205 W, and the AMD part at 180 W. The sockets are not interchangeable: Intel uses Socket 4189, and AMD uses Socket SP3. The process node also differs, with Intel at 10 nm and AMD at 7 nm. The Intel part is fabricated by Intel, while the AMD part is fabricated by TSMC. The AMD processor has a listed transistor count of 15,200 million and a die size of 4x 74 mm², while the Intel part does not have recorded transistor or die size data. The memory support is identical in type (DDR4), bus width (eight-channel), and bandwidth (204.8 GB/s), and both support ECC. The PCIe specification is the same (Gen 4), but the lane count differs: Intel provides 64 lanes, AMD provides 128 lanes. Neither processor has integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ, with the AMD part launching on 2019-08-06 and the Intel part on 2021-04-05. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of $1783, which can be stated once as such; no other pricing information is available in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architecture details reveal a generational split. The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U is built on the Ice Lake-SP architecture, part of the Ice Lake generation, using a 10 nm process. The AMD EPYC 7402 is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, using a 7 nm process from TSMC. The cache layouts differ substantially. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache is 1 MB per core on the Intel part versus 512 KB per core on the AMD part. The L3 cache is organized differently: Intel uses 48 MB shared, while AMD uses 32 MB per die with a total of 128 MB. The AMD part’s cache structure reflects its chiplet design, with four dies each having 32 MB of L3. The Intel part’s monolithic design uses a single shared L3 pool. The AMD part has a higher transistor count at 15,200 million, and its die size is recorded as 4x 74 mm², indicating four separate dies. The Intel part does not have recorded transistor or die size data in the database. The memory controllers are similar on paper, both eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s, but the PCIe controller differs, with AMD offering twice the lane count. The AMD part is from the EPYC 7002 series, while the Intel part does not have a listed series beyond its Xeon Gold branding. The production status for both is active, and both are aimed at the server/workstation market segment.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U wins across all recorded Cinebench benchmarks, both single-core and multi-core, with a 6.3% margin in each test. This makes it the stronger choice for compute-bound workloads that resemble Cinebench’s rendering tasks, such as 3D rendering, video encoding, and other multi-threaded CPU workloads. Its higher boost clock of 3.40 GHz, larger per-core L2 cache (1 MB versus 512 KB), and higher core count (32 versus 24) all contribute to this measured advantage. The Intel part also has a higher average benchmark score (12026 versus 11312) and sits at a slightly higher percentile (67 versus 66), reinforcing its position as the faster part in the database’s recorded tests.

The AMD EPYC 7402 wins in none of the recorded benchmarks, but it holds advantages in specifications that matter for other use cases. Its 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, double the Intel part’s 64, make it the better fit for systems with many high-speed expansion cards, NVMe drives, or GPUs. Its larger total L3 cache (128 MB versus 48 MB) could benefit workloads with large working sets that fit in cache, though this advantage does not appear in the Cinebench results. The 7 nm process node and lower TDP of 180 W, versus 205 W, point to potentially lower power draw per unit of performance, although the database does not provide power measurements to confirm this. The AMD part also has a higher base clock (2.80 GHz versus 2.30 GHz), which could help in lightly threaded tasks that run at base frequencies, but the single-core benchmark results do not show this translating into a win. The EPYC 7402’s launch date in 2019 and its launch MSRP of $1783 are noted, but pricing comparisons are outside the scope of the data. For users needing maximum PCIe expansion or who value the larger aggregate cache, the EPYC 7402 is the specification-driven choice; for users whose primary concern is the measured Cinebench performance in this database, the Xeon Gold 6314U is the clear winner.