AMD EPYC 7443 vs Intel Xeon 6315P Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a starkly one-sided picture in this matchup. Across all six recorded head-to-head tests, the AMD EPYC 7443 takes every single win. The Intel Xeon 6315P does not win a single recorded benchmark. This is not a close contest; it is a categorical sweep.

The Xeon 6315P does have one notable advantage in the broader database context. Its average benchmark score of 14574 places it at the 69th percentile among all CPUs, which is actually slightly higher than the EPYC 7443's 68th percentile despite the EPYC's much higher raw scores. The Xeon achieves this through its single-thread performance profile and its specific workload characteristics, particularly in PassMark tests where it has recorded scores. The EPYC 7443, despite its massive multi-core advantage, sits at a similar percentile because its average score of 13936 is dragged down by the specific benchmark mix in the database.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The EPYC 7443 is the dominant choice for any workload that scales across cores and threads, which includes rendering, encoding, virtualization, and database workloads. The Xeon 6315P, with its 4 cores and 4 threads, is suited for tasks that are latency-sensitive and lightly threaded, where its 4.70 GHz boost clock can shine. But even in single-core tests, the data shows the EPYC 7443 wins decisively, which complicates the Xeon's case.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon 6315P is built on Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, using Intel's 10 nm process node with the die size measured at 163 mm². It is a single-die design with 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. Its cache hierarchy consists of 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

The AMD EPYC 7443 is a Zen 3 Milan chip built on TSMC's 7 nm process. It packs 24 cores and 48 threads, which is a six-fold increase in core count and a twelve-fold increase in thread count over the Xeon. The EPYC uses a chiplet design with 4x 81 mm² dies, totaling 16,600 million transistors. Its cache configuration is dramatically different: 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB shared L3 cache, which is more than ten times the Xeon's L3.

Memory support also diverges sharply. The Xeon supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, while the EPYC supports only DDR4 but across eight channels, delivering 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Xeon's memory bandwidth is not recorded in the database, but the channel count alone indicates a significant gap. PCIe connectivity follows the same pattern: the Xeon offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes, an eight-fold difference in lane count.

The sockets are incompatible, with the Xeon using Intel Socket 1700 and the EPYC using AMD Socket SP3. Both are locked multipliers, and both support ECC memory. The Xeon lacks integrated graphics entirely, while the EPYC's integrated graphics field is null, suggesting it also has none.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench tests show a consistent and dramatic margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7443 scores 4856 against the Xeon's 1021, a delta of negative 79 percent from the Xeon's perspective. The single-core R15 result is similar: 685 for the EPYC versus 144 for the Xeon, again a negative 79 percent delta.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds exactly. Multi-core sees the EPYC at 20236 versus 4256, and single-core sees 2856 versus 600. Cinebench R23 repeats the same margins: 48183 versus 10134 in multi-core, and 6802 versus 1430 in single-core. Every single test shows the EPYC 7443 ahead by precisely 79 percent, which indicates a remarkably consistent performance ratio across all Cinebench workloads.

What is striking is that even in single-core tests, where the Xeon's 4.70 GHz boost clock should theoretically give it an edge over the EPYC's 4.00 GHz boost, the EPYC wins by the same 79 percent margin. This suggests that the Zen 3 architecture's IPC advantage at lower clocks more than compensates for the clock speed deficit. The Xeon's single-core score of 1430 in Cinebench R23 is respectable for a 4-core chip, but the EPYC's 6802 is on another level entirely.

The PassMark results for the Xeon provide additional context, though no direct comparison exists for the EPYC in those specific tests. The Xeon scores 118313 in data compression, 5470 in data encryption, 10539 in extended instructions, 33496 in floating point math, 27046 in integer math, 11923 in multithread, 1156 in physics, 14487 in random string sorting, and 3795 in single-thread tests. These numbers give the Xeon its 69th percentile ranking, but without EPYC equivalents, they only show that the Xeon has balanced performance across varied workloads for its core count.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7443 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6315P has 4 cores and 4 threads. The EPYC offers a six-fold core advantage and a twelve-fold thread advantage.

Q: How do their boost clocks compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 6315P boosts up to 4.70 GHz, which is higher than the AMD EPYC 7443's 4.00 GHz boost clock. Despite this clock advantage, the EPYC wins all single-core benchmarks by a 79 percent margin.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The AMD EPYC 7443 has 128 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon 6315P has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 is more than ten times larger.

Q: Which processor supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 7443 supports 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the Intel Xeon 6315P supports 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The EPYC offers an eight-fold increase in lane count, though the Xeon's lanes are a newer generation.

Q: What memory configurations do they support?

A: The Intel Xeon 6315P supports DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The AMD EPYC 7443 supports DDR4 only, but across eight channels with 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 6315P has an average benchmark score of 14574, placing it at the 69th percentile. The AMD EPYC 7443 has an average score of 13936, placing it at the 68th percentile. Despite losing every head-to-head test, the Xeon has a slightly higher average score in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The core count differential is the most obvious: 4 cores and 4 threads for the Intel Xeon 6315P versus 24 cores and 48 threads for the AMD EPYC 7443. Base clocks are close, with the Xeon at 2.80 GHz and the EPYC at 2.85 GHz, but boost clocks diverge, with the Xeon at 4.70 GHz and the EPYC at 4.00 GHz.

Power consumption shows a massive gap: the Xeon has a TDP of 55 watts, while the EPYC has a TDP of 200 watts. This nearly four-fold difference reflects the EPYC's much larger transistor count and core count. The process nodes differ as well, with Intel using 10 nm and AMD using 7 nm from TSMC. The die sizes are 163 mm² for the Xeon versus 4x 81 mm² for the EPYC, and the EPYC's transistor count is recorded at 16,600 million while the Xeon's is not listed.

Cache hierarchies are completely different in scale. The Xeon has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The EPYC has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 128 MB shared L3. Memory support differs in both type and channel count, with the Xeon supporting DDR4 and DDR5 dual-channel, and the EPYC supporting DDR4 eight-channel with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe capabilities are Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the Xeon versus Gen 4 with 128 lanes for the EPYC.

The sockets are incompatible (Intel Socket 1700 versus AMD Socket SP3), and the release dates are nearly four years apart, with the Xeon released in February 2025 and the EPYC in March 2021. The launch MSRP for the Xeon is $213, while the EPYC's launch MSRP is $2010.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 7443 wins every recorded benchmark by a 79 percent margin, across both multi-core and single-core tests. The Xeon 6315P's only statistical advantage is its slightly higher average benchmark score in the database (14574 versus 13936) and its higher percentile ranking (69th versus 68th), but this appears to be an artifact of the benchmark mix rather than a genuine performance advantage.

For users with workloads that scale across many cores, the EPYC 7443 is the only rational choice. Its 24 cores and 48 threads, combined with 128 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory, make it suitable for demanding server and workstation tasks. The Xeon 6315P, with its 4 cores and 55-watt TDP, is a low-power entry point into the Xeon platform, but the benchmark data shows it cannot compete with the EPYC in any measured workload.

The Xeon's higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz does not translate into single-core wins, as the EPYC's Zen 3 architecture delivers superior single-thread performance despite a lower clock. The Xeon's 10 nm process and smaller die size suggest lower power consumption, but the performance gap is so large that this advantage is unlikely to matter for most server applications.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the AMD EPYC 7443 for any performance-sensitive workload, and consider the Intel Xeon 6315P only if the 55-watt TDP and lower launch MSRP are the overriding factors. No benchmark in the database supports choosing the Xeon on performance grounds.