AMD EPYC 7402P vs Intel Xeon Gold 6330 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7402P and Intel Xeon Gold 6330 are both single-socket server and workstation processors aimed at dense compute workloads, and the database shows a clean sweep in the head-to-head results: the EPYC 7402P wins every recorded benchmark by a remarkably consistent margin of roughly 20%. Despite the Xeon Gold 6330 carrying more cores, the older AMD part converts fewer cores into more throughput on the strength of much higher clocks, more cache, and a 7 nm process node. Both chips sit at the 65th percentile versus all CPUs in the database, which makes this a close matchup on paper and a one-sided one in the recorded results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sweep is total. Across all six Cinebench comparisons in the database, the EPYC 7402P wins, and the margins are almost eerily uniform, clustering between 20.3% and 20.5%.

Starting with the newest and longest-running test, Cinebench R23 multi-core: 37,195 for the EPYC 7402P versus 30,906 for the Xeon Gold 6330, a 20.3% lead for AMD. The single-core R23 result tells the same story, 5,251 versus 4,363, a 20.4% gap. Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern: 15,621 versus 12,980 multi-core (20.3% AMD) and 2,205 versus 1,832 single-core (20.4% AMD). The older R15 results close it out at 3,749 versus 3,115 multi-core (20.4%) and 529 versus 439 single-core (20.5%).

What makes this sweep notable is that the single-core and multi-core margins are essentially identical. Usually a chip that wins multi-core does so through parallelism while giving ground on per-thread speed, or vice versa. Here the EPYC 7402P simply executes faster at every level of scaling. That points directly at the clock advantage: 2.80 GHz base and 3.35 GHz boost against 2.0 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost for the Xeon. The Xeon's four extra cores and eight extra threads never offset that deficit in any recorded test.

The Geekbench data reinforces the picture for the AMD side: 10,476 multi-core and 1,204 single-core. There is no Geekbench entry recorded for the Xeon Gold 6330 in the database, so the comparison rests on the six Cinebench results, and all six favor AMD.

Architecture Differences

These chips come from different design philosophies. The EPYC 7402P is AMD's Zen 2 architecture, codename Rome, built on TSMC's 7 nm process with 3,800 million transistors packed into a 74 mm² die. The Xeon Gold 6330 is Intel's Ice Lake-SP on Intel's own 10 nm node, and it launched later, on 2021-04-05, versus 2019-08-06 for the Rome part. A generational-and-a-half gap, and the older chip still wins every benchmark in the database.

Core topology favors Intel on paper: 28 cores and 56 threads against AMD's 24 cores and 48 threads. Cache design goes the other way, hard. The EPYC carries 96 KB of L1 per core and a huge 128 MB of shared L3. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core (double AMD's 512 KB per core), but only 42 MB of shared L3, less than a third of the EPYC's pool. For database, virtualization, and rendering workloads that thrash shared cache, that 128 MB is a structural advantage that shows up in every multi-core score above.

Platform capabilities are close but not identical. Both support DDR4 across an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, both support ECC memory, and both expose PCIe Gen 4. The difference is lane count: the EPYC 7402P offers 128 CPU-only PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the Xeon Gold 6330 offers 64. For NVMe-dense storage servers or GPU compute boxes, the AMD platform has twice the direct-attach connectivity. Neither chip has integrated graphics.

TDP is 180 W for the EPYC against 205 W for the Xeon, so the AMD part delivers its 20% performance lead while rated for less heat output. Sockets are incompatible, naturally: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 4189, so this comparison matters for platform planning, not drop-in upgrades. Both chips remain in Active production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 7402P carries a launch MSRP of $1280; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Xeon Gold 6330.

Where Each One Wins

For the EPYC 7402P, the honest answer is: everywhere the database measures. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, 6-0. Rendering throughput, per-core responsiveness, sustained multi-core scaling, every category goes AMD. If the workload looks anything like Cinebench, meaning heavily threaded compute that benefits from a large shared cache and higher clocks, the EPYC is the stronger performer by a wide and consistent margin.

The EPYC also wins on platform arguments the database supports: double the PCIe Gen 4 lanes (128 versus 64), triple the shared L3 cache, lower TDP, and higher clocks at both base and boost. Its average benchmark score of 9,529 sits just 0.4% from the Intel Core i7-7700HQ, 1.1% from the Intel Atom x7835RE, 1.3% from the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180, and 1.6% behind the Intel Core i5-1035G1 in the database's nearest-rivals list.

For the Xeon Gold 6330, the wins are countable rather than measured: more cores (28 versus 24), more threads (56 versus 48), and double the per-core L2 (1 MB versus 512 KB). None of that translated into a single benchmark victory in the recorded data. Its average score of 8,939 puts it within 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-8650U, 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i5-8350U, 1.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-1135G7, and 2.4% ahead of the Intel Xeon Gold 6346. Both chips land at the 65th percentile against all CPUs in the database, so on aggregate they are peers, but head-to-head they are not.

The Verdict

The data makes this straightforward. If the goal is maximum benchmark throughput per socket and the workload resembles the rendering-style tests recorded here, the EPYC 7402P is the pick: 20% faster in every test, more PCIe lanes for expansion, more shared cache, and a lower TDP. It wins 6-0 with no recorded test favoring the Xeon.

The Xeon Gold 6330's case rests on topology: four more cores and eight more threads, plus a newer platform generation in Ice Lake-SP on Socket 4189. Workloads that scale purely with thread count and never hit clocks or cache could use those extra threads, but the database contains no benchmark evidence of that translating into a win, and its lower base clock of 2.0 GHz undercuts it in every measured scenario. Choose the Xeon only when an existing Socket 4189 platform or a specific need for its extra threads dictates it; otherwise, the recorded results favor the EPYC 7402P without qualification.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Xeon Gold 6330 win any benchmarks against the EPYC 7402P?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7402P wins all six recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins from 20.3% to 20.5% in multi-core and single-core alike.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7402P in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 7402P scores 37,195 against 30,906 for the Xeon Gold 6330, a 20.3% lead.

Q: Which chip has more cores?

A: The Xeon Gold 6330, with 28 cores and 56 threads versus 24 cores and 48 threads for the EPYC 7402P. Despite that, it loses every recorded benchmark.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The EPYC 7402P has far more shared L3 at 128 MB versus 42 MB, and 96 KB of L1 per core versus 64 KB. The Xeon counters with 1 MB of L2 per core versus 512 KB.

Q: Do both support the same memory and PCIe?

A: Both support DDR4 on an eight-channel bus at 204.8 GB/s with ECC. Both offer PCIe Gen 4, but the EPYC provides 128 CPU-only lanes versus 64 on the Xeon.

Q: Which chip runs cooler by rating?

A: The EPYC 7402P, with a TDP of 180 W versus 205 W for the Xeon Gold 6330.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD EPYC 7402P | Intel Xeon Gold 6330 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 24 | 28 |

| Threads | 48 | 56 |

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.35 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 205 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel Socket 4189 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 (Rome) | Ice Lake (Ice Lake-SP) |

| Process Node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 10 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 3,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB per core | 64 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB per core | 1 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 128 MB shared | 42 MB shared |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 64 lanes (CPU only) |

| Release Date | 2019-08-06 | 2021-04-05 |

| Launch MSRP | $1280 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | 100-000000048 | SRKHMCD8068904572101 |

Memory support, memory bus, bandwidth, ECC, integrated graphics (none on both), market segment, production status, and multiplier lock are identical between the two, so they are excluded from the table.