AMD EPYC 7413 vs Intel Xeon 638 Comparison

The Intel Xeon 638 and AMD EPYC 7413 are two server-class processors that deliver near-identical aggregate performance, but they achieve it through fundamentally different designs. The data shows the Intel Xeon 638 wins 12 of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 7413 takes 5. However, the EPYC 7413's victories are concentrated in specific workloads where its architecture holds a distinct advantage. The Intel Xeon 638 is the better choice for single-threaded performance, floating-point math, and extended instruction workloads. The AMD EPYC 7413 is the pick for data encryption, integer math, and random string sorting tasks. Both processors sit in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 80723 for Intel and 80041 for AMD, a difference of less than 1%.

The Verdict

Choose the Intel Xeon 638 if your workloads prioritize raw single-core speed, floating-point operations, or SIMD-heavy code. Its 52.9% lead in PassMark single-thread performance (3670 vs 2400) is the largest margin in any benchmark, and it maintains a consistent 9.7% advantage across all Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests. The Xeon 638 also delivers 23.6% better PassMark extended instructions and 21.8% better floating-point math, making it the superior processor for scientific computing, rendering, and any application that leverages modern instruction sets.

Choose the AMD EPYC 7413 if your workloads involve encryption, integer-heavy calculations, or data sorting. It crushes the Xeon 638 in PassMark data encryption with a 25.7% advantage (48492 vs 36030), and it leads in integer math by 14.3% (215629 vs 184884). The EPYC 7413 also wins random string sorting by 8.4% (81134 vs 74318). For database operations, financial modeling, or cryptographic tasks, the EPYC 7413's 24 cores and 48 threads provide a tangible edge despite its lower clock speeds.

The overall benchmark averages tell a story of near-parity: the Xeon 638 averages 80723 across all tests, barely edging out the EPYC 7413's 80041. This 0.8% difference is statistically negligible, so the decision should hinge on workload-specific needs rather than overall performance. The Xeon 638's launch MSRP is $899, while the EPYC 7413's is $1825, a fact that may influence procurement decisions but does not change the performance analysis.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 638 is built on Intel's 5 nm process and uses the Granite Rapids architecture, codenamed Granite Rapids, from the Xeon 600 series. It features 16 cores and 32 threads with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The die size is 598 mm², and it uses a large 72 MB shared L3 cache. Each core gets 112 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 cache. The processor supports DDR5 memory over a quad-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and it provides PCIe Gen 5 with 80 CPU-only lanes. The multiplier is unlocked, which is unusual for a server processor.

The AMD EPYC 7413 belongs to the EPYC 7003 series and uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan. It is fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process with 16,600 million transistors spread across 4x 81 mm² dies. The chip packs 24 cores and 48 threads, running at a base clock of 2.65 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The L3 cache is a massive 128 MB shared pool, while each core has 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2. Memory support is DDR4 over an eight-channel bus, also delivering 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe is Gen 4 with 128 CPU-only lanes, and the multiplier is locked.

The core count difference is the most significant architectural gap: the EPYC 7413 has 50% more cores and 50% more threads than the Xeon 638. However, the Xeon 638 compensates with much higher clock speeds—its boost clock is 33% higher (4.80 vs 3.60 GHz) and its base clock is 21% higher (3.20 vs 2.65 GHz). The cache layouts also differ sharply: AMD dedicates more total L3 (128 MB vs 72 MB) but gives each core less L2 (512 KB vs 2 MB). The Xeon 638's 5 nm process node is newer than the EPYC's 7 nm, and Intel's die is substantially larger at 598 mm² versus AMD's 4x 81 mm² multi-chip design.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 638 is decisively faster in single-threaded tests. It scores 3670 in PassMark single-thread versus 2400 for the AMD EPYC 7413, a 52.9% advantage. This gap is consistent across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests, where the Xeon 638 leads by 9.6-9.7% in each.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7413's higher core count translate to more multi-core performance?

A: No. Despite having 24 cores versus 16, the EPYC 7413 loses every Cinebench multi-core test. The Xeon 638 scores 47202 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 43044 for the EPYC, a 9.7% margin. The Xeon 638 also wins PassMark multithread by 9.9% (55651 vs 50641).

Q: Which processor is better for encryption workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7413 is overwhelmingly better for data encryption. It scores 48492 in PassMark data encryption versus 36030 for the Xeon 638, a 25.7% advantage. This is the EPYC's largest winning margin in any benchmark.

Q: How do their memory systems differ?

A: The Xeon 638 uses DDR5 memory over a quad-channel bus, while the EPYC 7413 uses DDR4 over an eight-channel bus. Both achieve the same 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, but the channel configurations and memory types are distinct.

Q: What about PCIe connectivity?

A: The AMD EPYC 7413 provides more PCIe lanes: 128 Gen 4 lanes versus 80 Gen 5 lanes on the Intel Xeon 638. The Xeon 638 uses the newer Gen 5 standard, while the EPYC 7413 uses Gen 4.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7413 has a 128 MB shared L3 cache, which is 78% larger than the Xeon 638's 72 MB shared L3 cache. However, the Xeon 638 gives each core 2 MB of L2 cache, which is four times more than the EPYC's 512 KB per core.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Intel Xeon 638 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7413 has 24 cores and 48 threads. Clock speeds favor Intel: the Xeon 638 runs at 3.20 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, whereas the EPYC 7413 runs at 2.65 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. Both have a TDP of 180 W, but they use different sockets—Intel Socket 4710 for the Xeon 638 and AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC 7413.

The process nodes differ: Intel uses 5 nm, while AMD uses 7 nm from TSMC. The Xeon 638 has a 598 mm² die, while the EPYC 7413 uses 4x 81 mm² dies with 16,600 million transistors. Cache hierarchies are distinct: the Xeon 638 offers 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core with 72 MB shared L3; the EPYC 7413 offers 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core with 128 MB shared L3. Memory support differs by generation—DDR5 for Intel, DDR4 for AMD—but both use different channel counts (quad vs eight) to hit the same 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe also differs: Gen 5 with 80 lanes on Intel, Gen 4 with 128 lanes on AMD. The Xeon 638 has an unlocked multiplier and a launch MSRP of $899; the EPYC 7413 has a locked multiplier and a launch MSRP of $1825. The Xeon 638 was released in 2026, while the EPYC 7413 came out in 2021.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon 638 dominates the Cinebench suite, winning all six tests by the same 9.7% margin. In Cinebench R15, it scores 4757 multi-core and 671 single-core versus 4338 and 612 for the EPYC 7413. R20 results are 19824 vs 18078 multi-core and 2798 vs 2551 single-core. R23 shows 47202 vs 43044 multi-core and 6663 vs 6076 single-core. This uniformity suggests a consistent clock-speed advantage rather than workload-specific tuning.

The PassMark suite reveals a more nuanced picture. The Xeon 638 wins data compression by a narrow 1.4% (725818 vs 715616), extended instructions by 23.6% (56498 vs 45696), floating-point math by 21.8% (144757 vs 118881), and multithread by 9.9% (55651 vs 50641). Its single-thread score of 3670 crushes the EPYC's 2400 by 52.9%, the largest delta in the entire comparison.

The AMD EPYC 7413's wins are just as decisive in its favor. Data encryption shows a 25.7% lead (48492 vs 36030). Integer math favors the EPYC by 14.3% (215629 vs 184884). Random string sorting goes to AMD by 8.4% (81134 vs 74318). Find prime numbers is close, with the EPYC winning by 4% (397 vs 381). Physics is essentially a tie, with the EPYC ahead by 0.1% (4708 vs 4704).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 638 is the clear winner for single-threaded and lightly-threaded applications. Its 52.9% single-thread advantage makes it ideal for latency-sensitive workloads, legacy software that doesn't scale across cores, and any application where per-core performance drives user experience. The 23.6% lead in extended instructions and 21.8% lead in floating-point math position it strongly for scientific simulations, 3D rendering, and engineering analysis. The consistent 9.7% Cinebench advantage across both single and multi-core tests suggests the Xeon 638 is a better all-around choice for creative professional workloads that rely on these rendering engines.

The AMD EPYC 7413 wins in specialized enterprise scenarios. Its 25.7% advantage in data encryption makes it the preferred processor for secure communications, VPN gateways, and any workload involving heavy cryptographic operations. The 14.3% lead in integer math favors database operations, financial calculations, and general business applications. The 8.4% win in random string sorting points to strength in data processing pipelines, log analysis, and text-heavy workloads. The EPYC's larger 128 MB L3 cache and 24 physical cores likely contribute to these wins, providing more on-die data and parallel execution units for integer-heavy tasks.

In workloads where both processors are close—data compression (1.4% delta), prime number finding (4% delta), and physics (0.1% delta)—the choice should be made on other factors like platform compatibility or total system cost. The Xeon 638's newer 5 nm process and DDR5 support may offer future-proofing benefits, while the EPYC 7413's PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes provides more connectivity options for storage and networking expansion. Ultimately, the data shows two processors that are evenly matched overall, with each excelling in distinct niches that should guide procurement decisions.