AMD EPYC 7402P vs Intel Xeon Gold 5320 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7402P and Intel Xeon Gold 5320 are both 64-core-class server processors aimed at dual-socket-skipping single-socket workstations, but the benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap. Across every single Cinebench test, the AMD EPYC 7402P wins by a consistent 16.5% margin, making it the clear choice for raw compute throughput in this comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unusually one-sided. The AMD EPYC 7402P wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with the exact same 16.5% delta in every single case. This uniformity across both multi-core and single-core tests suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7402P scores 3749 against the Xeon Gold 5320's 3217. That is a 532-point gap, which translates to roughly 16.5% more rendering throughput. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: 529 for AMD versus 454 for Intel, again a 16.5% lead. This is not a case where one chip wins on multi-threaded workloads and the other wins on lightly-threaded tasks—the AMD part dominates both.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds precisely. The EPYC 7402P posts 15621 multi-core and 2205 single-core, while the Xeon Gold 5320 manages 13408 and 1892 respectively. The 16.5% delta remains constant. Cinebench R23 repeats the same outcome: 37195 versus 31924 in multi-core, and 5251 versus 4506 in single-core. Every single comparison shows the AMD processor ahead by exactly 16.5%, which is a remarkable consistency that points to a per-clock or per-core efficiency edge.

Notably, the Xeon Gold 5320 has two more cores (26 versus 24) and a higher boost clock (3.40 GHz versus 3.35 GHz), yet still loses by the same margin across the board. This means the EPYC 7402P is extracting more performance per core, and the benchmark results indicate its advantage is not dependent on thread count. The Geekbench multicore score for the EPYC 7402P is 10476, with a single-core score of 1204, though no corresponding Geekbench figures exist for the Xeon Gold 5320 in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7402P wins every benchmark category that was measured. There are no Cinebench tests where the Intel Xeon Gold 5320 comes out ahead, and the winsA/winsB tally sits at 6-0 in favor of AMD. For workloads that rely on Cinebench-style rendering—which typically scales with both core count and single-thread efficiency—the EPYC 7402P is the superior part.

The Xeon Gold 5320 does not win any measured benchmark, but that does not mean it is without merit in a server context. Its advantage lies in different domains: it offers 26 cores versus 24, and a slightly higher boost clock of 3.40 GHz versus 3.35 GHz. For workloads that are heavily multi-threaded and can leverage the two additional cores, the Xeon may close the gap, but the data shows it still trails in Cinebench. The Intel part also has a larger L2 cache per core (1 MB versus 512 KB), which could benefit certain cache-sensitive workloads, though the benchmark results do not reflect any such advantage in the tests conducted.

The EPYC 7402P wins on memory bandwidth as well, with 204.8 GB/s versus the Xeon's 191.6 GB/s. This gives AMD a 6.9% bandwidth advantage, which matters for memory-bound workloads like database processing or large-scale virtualization. The AMD part also has double the PCIe lanes (128 versus 64), making it the better choice for systems with many GPUs or NVMe drives.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7402P is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, using a 7 nm process from TSMC. It packs 3,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die. The Intel Xeon Gold 5320 uses the Ice Lake-SP architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process. No transistor count or die size is provided for the Intel part, but the process node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 10 nm.

The cache hierarchy differs substantially. The EPYC 7402P has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon Gold 5320 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, but only 39 MB of shared L3. This is a major difference: the AMD part has over three times the L3 cache (128 MB versus 39 MB). For workloads that repeatedly access large datasets, the larger L3 can reduce memory traffic and improve performance.

Both chips support DDR4 memory with eight-channel memory buses and ECC, but the EPYC 7402P has a higher memory bandwidth rating at 204.8 GB/s versus 191.6 GB/s. Both support PCIe Gen 4, but the AMD part offers 128 lanes (CPU only) while the Intel part offers 64 lanes. This doubles the expansion capability for the AMD platform.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket SP3, while Intel uses Socket 4189. The EPYC 7402P was released on 2019-08-06, while the Xeon Gold 5320 came later on 2021-04-05. Both are listed as active in production and target the server/workstation segment.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ modestly: the EPYC 7402P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Xeon Gold 5320 has 26 cores and 52 threads. The Intel part has two more cores and four more threads. However, the base clocks tell a different story: the AMD chip runs at 2.80 GHz base versus 2.20 GHz for Intel, a 0.60 GHz advantage. The boost clocks are close, with Intel slightly ahead at 3.40 GHz versus 3.35 GHz.

Thermal design power is similar, with the EPYC 7402P rated at 180 W and the Xeon Gold 5320 at 185 W. The AMD part draws slightly less power while delivering higher benchmark scores, which suggests better efficiency per watt.

The process node differs (7 nm TSMC versus 10 nm Intel), and the L3 cache is dramatically different (128 MB versus 39 MB). PCIe lane counts also differ: 128 lanes for AMD versus 64 for Intel. The memory bandwidth is 204.8 GB/s for AMD versus 191.6 GB/s for Intel. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of $1280, which can be stated once as the launch MSRP; no pricing information is available for the Intel part.

The transistor count of 3,800 million and die size of 74 mm² are listed for the AMD part only; no corresponding figures exist for the Xeon Gold 5320. Neither processor has integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402P scores 37195 versus the Intel Xeon Gold 5320's 31924, a 16.5% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon Gold 5320 win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head tests, the AMD EPYC 7402P wins all six Cinebench tests, with a 6-0 record in winsA/winsB.

Q: How does the core count compare between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5320 has 26 cores and 52 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7402P has 24 cores and 48 threads. Intel has two more cores and four more threads.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402P has 128 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5320 has 39 MB. That is over three times more L3 for AMD.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402P has 204.8 GB/s versus 191.6 GB/s for the Intel Xeon Gold 5320, giving AMD a 6.9% bandwidth advantage.

Q: Are the PCIe lane counts the same?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7402P has 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon Gold 5320 has 64 lanes. AMD offers double the expansion capability.

The Verdict

The data points decisively to the AMD EPYC 7402P for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance. It wins every single benchmark by a uniform 16.5% margin, despite having fewer cores and a lower boost clock than the Intel Xeon Gold 5320. The AMD part achieves this with a smaller process node (7 nm versus 10 nm), a much larger L3 cache (128 MB versus 39 MB), higher memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s versus 191.6 GB/s), and double the PCIe lanes (128 versus 64). The launch MSRP of $1280 for the EPYC 7402P is the only price data available, and no MSRP is listed for the Intel part.

For workloads that resemble Cinebench—heavily threaded rendering, simulation, or video encoding—the EPYC 7402P is the clear winner. Its consistent 16.5% lead in both multi-core and single-core tests indicates a per-thread efficiency advantage that will carry over to many other applications. The Intel Xeon Gold 5320 offers two more cores and a slightly higher boost clock, but the benchmark results show these do not translate into a performance win in the tested scenarios.

The Xeon Gold 5320 might still be worth considering for specific workloads that benefit from its larger L2 cache per core (1 MB versus 512 KB) or for systems already invested in the Intel Socket 4189 platform. However, based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 7402P delivers superior performance across the board, with an average benchmark score of 9529 versus 9234 for the Intel part. The percentileVsAllCpus rating is identical at 65 for both, but the head-to-head results leave no ambiguity about which processor is faster in this comparison. Choose the EPYC 7402P for maximum compute throughput, and only consider the Xeon Gold 5320 if the two extra cores or specific platform requirements are non-negotiable.