AMD EPYC 7402P vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 Comparison

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7402P outperforms the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 across every recorded workload, despite the Intel part having more cores. The EPYC 7402P wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with a consistent margin of 4.9% in favor of AMD in each case. This uniformity suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than workload-specific quirks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern is the consistency of the performance gap. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon Platinum 8280 scores 3564, while the EPYC 7402P scores 3749, a 4.9% deficit for Intel. The single-core R15 test shows the same 4.9% delta, with Intel at 503 and AMD at 529. This is not a case where one processor excels in multithreaded tasks while the other takes single-threaded wins; the EPYC 7402P simply leads everywhere.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the story remains identical. Intel scores 14854 in multicore, AMD scores 15621, again a 4.9% difference. In single-core R20, Intel manages 2097 versus AMD's 2205. The R23 results reinforce the trend with the same relative margin: Intel posts 35367 in multicore and 4993 in single-core, while AMD posts 37195 and 5251 respectively. The delta holds at exactly 4.9% across all six tests, indicating that the performance relationship is stable regardless of the rendering workload's intensity.

What makes this noteworthy is the core count discrepancy. The Xeon Platinum 8280 fields 28 cores and 56 threads, while the EPYC 7402P has 24 cores and 48 threads. Despite having 4 fewer cores and 8 fewer threads, the AMD chip consistently wins by a clear margin. This implies that per-core efficiency and memory subsystem performance are doing heavy lifting for AMD. The Xeon's higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz compared to the EPYC's 3.35 GHz does not translate into a single-core victory, meaning the Zen 2 microarchitecture is extracting more instructions per clock.

The average benchmark scores from the database place the Xeon at 10230 and the EPYC at 9529, which appears contradictory given the head-to-head results. However, the Xeon's average includes its nearest rivals, where it sits in a tight cluster: it trails the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U by 0.6%, leads the AMD EPYC 7F52 by 0.7%, trails the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 by 0.9%, and trails the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N by 1.1%. The EPYC 7402P, by contrast, leads the Intel Core i7-7700HQ by 0.4%, leads the Intel Atom x7835RE by 1.1%, leads the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 by 1.3%, and trails the Intel Core i5-1035G1 by 1.6%. These percentile positions, 66th for Intel and 65th for AMD, are nearly identical, but the direct comparison favors AMD decisively.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7402P wins every category that the recorded data covers. In multithreaded rendering, it leads by 4.9% in R15, R20, and R23. In single-threaded rendering, it also leads by 4.9% in all three versions of the test. There are no benchmark categories where the Xeon Platinum 8280 comes out ahead.

The practical implication is that any workload based on Cinebench, which simulates 3D rendering and CPU-bound creative tasks, will run faster on the EPYC 7402P. This includes both tasks that scale across many cores and tasks that depend on a single core's speed. The Xeon's advantage in core count, 28 versus 24, does not materialize into a win, which indicates the AMD part's larger shared cache and more efficient core design compensate for the deficit.

For use cases where raw thread count matters most, such as heavily parallel server workloads, the Xeon's 56 threads versus 48 threads might seem preferable on paper. But the recorded scores show that the EPYC 7402P's 48 threads still outpace the Xeon's 56 threads in multicore tests. This means the Xeon's extra threads are not being utilized effectively enough to overcome AMD's per-core superiority.

The EPYC 7402P also holds a slight edge in single-core performance, which is critical for lightly threaded workloads like database queries, virtualization management, and legacy application support. With a 4.9% lead in every single-core test, the AMD part is the safer choice for mixed workloads that do not scale perfectly across many cores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations with distinct design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 uses the Cascade Lake architecture, specifically Cascade Lake-SP, built on a 14 nm process at Intel's foundry. It packs 8,000 million transistors. The AMD EPYC 7402P uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 3,800 million transistors and a die size of 74 mm².

The cache hierarchy diverges significantly. Intel provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 38.5 MB of shared L3 cache. AMD provides 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's total L3 is more than triple the Xeon's, which likely contributes to its superior performance in both single-core and multi-core benchmarks, as more data can reside closer to the cores.

Memory support is another differentiator. Both support DDR4 memory and ECC, but AMD specifies an eight-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while Intel's memory bus details are not recorded. The EPYC also features PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), whereas Intel's PCIe capabilities are not listed. The AMD part's higher memory bandwidth and more modern PCIe standard give it an edge in data-intensive and I/O-heavy server environments.

The sockets differ as expected: Intel uses Socket 3647, AMD uses Socket SP3. The process node difference is notable, with Intel at 14 nm and AMD at 7 nm, allowing AMD to achieve competitive performance with fewer transistors and a smaller die. The Xeon's TDP is 205 W, while the EPYC's is 180 W, meaning the AMD part delivers better performance at a lower thermal envelope.

The release dates place Intel first, launching on 2018-12-10, with AMD following on 2019-08-06. The EPYC 7402P has a launch MSRP of $1280, while the Xeon's launch MSRP is not recorded. The AMD part is listed as active in production, while Intel's production status is not specified.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7402P has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: Does the Intel processor win any benchmark?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7402P wins all six recorded Cinebench tests, covering R15, R20, and R23 in both multicore and single-core modes, each by a 4.9% margin.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 scores 35367, while the AMD EPYC 7402P scores 37195, giving AMD a 4.9% lead.

Q: Which processor has larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402P has 128 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 has 38.5 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the process nodes for each?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 uses a 14 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 7402P uses a 7 nm process.

Q: Do both support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 and the AMD EPYC 7402P support ECC memory and DDR4 memory.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner in the AMD EPYC 7402P. It outperforms the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 in every single benchmark recorded, and it does so with fewer cores, lower TDP, and a smaller transistor count. The consistent 4.9% lead across all tests indicates that this is not a marginal or workload-specific advantage but a systemic one.

For users prioritizing rendering performance, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, the EPYC 7402P is the correct choice. Its 128 MB L3 cache and 7 nm Zen 2 architecture deliver superior results despite having 4 fewer cores. The Xeon Platinum 8280's only theoretical advantage is its higher core count, but the benchmarks show that this does not translate into real-world wins.

For users who need the highest possible thread count for non-Cinebench workloads, the Xeon's 56 threads might still be relevant, but the recorded data shows that the EPYC's 48 threads are already faster in multithreaded rendering. The EPYC also offers more modern features, including PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes and an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, which are not matched by the Intel part's specifications.

The Xeon Platinum 8280 sits in a slightly higher performance percentile relative to all CPUs (66th versus 65th), but this is due to its rival set, not its direct comparison with the EPYC. When placed head-to-head, the EPYC 7402P wins decisively. The verdict is straightforward: choose the AMD EPYC 7402P for superior benchmark performance, lower power draw, and a more modern platform.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 | AMD EPYC 7402P |

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

| Cores | 28 | 24 |

| Threads | 56 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.35 GHz |

| TDP | 205 W | 180 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 3647 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Cascade Lake | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Cascade Lake-SP | Rome |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 3,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 74 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 38.5 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Not recorded | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Not recorded | Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Release Date | 2018-12-10 | 2019-08-06 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $1280 |

| Production Status | Not recorded | Active |

| Part Number | SRF9PCD8069504228001 | 100-000000048 |