AMD EPYC 7402 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6342 Comparison

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture for the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 and AMD EPYC 7402. Across every single Cinebench test, from the older R15 to the newer R23, the Intel processor wins by the exact same margin of 2.3%. This uniformity in the deltaPct is the most striking feature of the comparison, suggesting a fundamental, clock-for-clock efficiency advantage for Intel in this workload, rather than a test-specific quirk. The AMD EPYC 7402, while older, is not left in the dust, but the data shows it is consistently trailing.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head table is a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon Gold 6342, which wins all six benchmark comparisons. The margin of victory is a constant 2.3% in every instance. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel scores 40014 against AMD's 39110. In the single-core variant, the Intel scores 5649 against AMD's 5521. This pattern repeats in the older tests: R20 multi-core shows 16805 vs 16426, and R15 multi-core shows 4033 vs 3942. The single-core results in R20 (2372 vs 2318) and R15 (569 vs 556) also reflect the same 2.3% delta.

This consistency is noteworthy. The 2.3% gap is identical whether the test scales across all 24 cores or runs on a single thread. This implies the difference is not related to multi-core scaling, cache coherency, or inter-die communication, but rather to a per-core performance advantage. The Intel part's higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz, compared to the AMD's 3.35 GHz, is the most direct explanation for this uniform edge in these heavily frequency-dependent workloads. The average benchmark scores reflect this overall trend, with Intel at 11574 and AMD at 11312, a difference of roughly 2.3% as well. The Intel processor's percentile ranking of 67 versus AMD's 66 confirms that this small but consistent lead translates into a slightly higher position in the overall performance distribution.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies and generations. The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 is built on the Ice Lake-SP architecture, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. In contrast, the AMD EPYC 7402 uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and is manufactured by TSMC on a more advanced 7 nm node. This process advantage allows AMD to pack a massive 15,200 million transistors across a complex of four 74 mm² dies. Intel does not list transistor count or die size in the data.

The cache hierarchies also differ significantly. Intel allocates a full 1 MB of L2 cache per core, while AMD uses a smaller 512 KB per core. For L3 cache, Intel provides a single, shared 36 MB pool. AMD's approach is more distributed, with 32 MB per die, totaling 128 MB of L3 cache. This 128 MB is a substantial amount, but the data shows it does not help the EPYC 7402 overcome Intel's lead in the Cinebench tests, which are less sensitive to large L3 capacities than some other workloads might be. Both processors share the same 64 KB L1 cache per core.

The platform and I/O capabilities show a clear divergence. Intel uses the Socket 4189 with 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. AMD's EPYC 7402, on the other hand, uses Socket SP3 and offers double the PCIe connectivity with 128 Gen 4 lanes. This is a major architectural difference for server workloads. Both support DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus, yielding the same theoretical memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, and both support ECC memory. The Intel part was released on 2021-04-05, while the AMD part is older, with a release date of 2019-08-06.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 wins in all measured categories. It holds a 2.3% lead in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests. For workloads that are heavily reliant on raw Cinebench-style rendering performance, the Intel part is the clear choice. The consistency of its victory across all test versions suggests it will maintain this edge in similar CPU-bound tasks.

The AMD EPYC 7402, however, has a definitive advantage in a key specification: PCIe lanes. With 128 Gen 4 lanes versus Intel's 64, the AMD platform can support significantly more expansion cards, NVMe drives, or GPUs directly connected to the CPU. This makes it a more suitable foundation for systems requiring massive I/O throughput, such as high-density storage servers or GPU-accelerated compute nodes, even if its raw CPU benchmark scores are slightly lower. The data does not include benchmarks for these I/O scenarios, but the specification difference is clear and significant. The AMD part also presents a different power profile, with a 180 W TDP compared to Intel's 230 W, which could be a deciding factor in power-constrained environments.

Specification Differences

The most critical specification differences between the two processors are as follows:

• Process Node: Intel uses a 10 nm process, while AMD uses a 7 nm process from TSMC.
• L2 Cache: Intel has 1 MB per core, AMD has 512 KB per core.
• L3 Cache: Intel has a 36 MB shared pool, AMD has 128 MB total (32 MB per die).
• PCIe Lanes: Intel provides 64 Gen 4 lanes, AMD provides 128 Gen 4 lanes.
• TDP: Intel is rated at 230 W, AMD at 180 W.
• Socket: Intel uses Socket 4189, AMD uses Socket SP3.
• Boost Clock: Intel boosts to 3.50 GHz, AMD to 3.35 GHz.

The two parts are identical in their core counts (24), thread counts (48), base clock (2.80 GHz), memory type (DDR4), memory bus width (eight-channel), memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s), and ECC support. Both are for the Server/Workstation market segment and are currently Active in production. The AMD EPYC 7402 has a launch MSRP of $1783. The Intel part has no listed launch MSRP, and both are locked (multiplierUnlocked is false).

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 is faster, winning the Cinebench R23 multi-core test with a score of 40014 compared to the AMD EPYC 7402's 39110. This represents a 2.3% advantage for Intel.

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 7402 competitive in single-core performance?

A: It is close, but still behind. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 scores 5649, while the AMD EPYC 7402 scores 5521. The Intel part maintains the same 2.3% lead in this test as it does in the multi-core tests.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: They are identical. Both support DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, providing the same theoretical memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both also support ECC memory.

Q: Does the AMD processor have a major specification advantage?

A: Yes, in PCIe connectivity. The AMD EPYC 7402 offers 128 Gen 4 lanes, which is double the 64 lanes available on the Intel Xeon Gold 6342.

Q: Are there any significant differences in their power requirements?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 7402 has a lower TDP of 180 W, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 has a higher TDP of 230 W.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each chip?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 sits in the 67th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD EPYC 7402 is in the 66th percentile. This close ranking reflects their similar average benchmark scores of 11574 and 11312, respectively.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for raw CPU rendering performance. The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 is the superior processor for Cinebench workloads, winning every test by a consistent 2.3% margin. Its higher boost clock and larger per-core L2 cache appear to give it a decisive edge in these tasks. Any system builder prioritizing single-threaded or multi-threaded CPU compute in this specific benchmark family should select the Intel part.

The AMD EPYC 7402 is not without its merits. Its 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes are a massive advantage for servers requiring extensive I/O expansion. The data shows it is also more power-efficient, with a 180 W TDP versus Intel's 230 W. For a workload that is bottlenecked by storage or GPU connectivity, the AMD platform's superior I/O capabilities could outweigh its 2.3% deficit in CPU benchmark scores. The verdict is therefore dependent on the primary workload: Intel wins on pure compute as measured here; AMD wins on platform connectivity and power efficiency.