AMD EPYC 7452 vs Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U Comparison

The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U and the AMD EPYC 7452 occupy different tiers of the server market, and their benchmark results reflect that divide clearly. The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the AMD part across all compared workloads, with the EPYC 7452 delivering significantly higher scores in every Cinebench test. While the Xeon Bronze 3408U is positioned as an entry-level server processor, the EPYC 7452 is a high-core-count workhorse, and the benchmark gap between them is substantial.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the head-to-head benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 7452 wins every single recorded comparison. There are zero wins for the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U in the six tests that compare both processors directly. The EPYC 7452 dominates both single-core and multi-core workloads, with the same relative margin of 78.3% advantage across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests.

The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U does not win any category in the direct comparison. However, looking at its broader benchmark profile, it does have strengths in specific workloads relative to its own average. Its PassMark data shows a strong result in data compression (95714), which stands out compared to its integer math score (22803) or floating point math (29142). The EPYC 7452, by contrast, has no PassMark scores in the database, so its performance profile is limited to the Cinebench suite.

For use-case splitting, the data suggests that the EPYC 7452 is the clear choice for any workload that can leverage multiple cores, including rendering, simulation, and other parallel compute tasks. The Xeon Bronze 3408U, with its 8 cores and 8 threads, is more suited to lighter duties or tasks that do not scale well with core count, though even its single-core results are far behind the EPYC.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U is built on Sapphire Rapids architecture, using a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning no hyper-threading, with a base clock of 1800 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 22.5 MB L3 cache.

The AMD EPYC 7452 uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, built on a 7 nm process node from TSMC. It packs 32 cores and 64 threads, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. The cache configuration is different: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC also lists 3,800 million transistors and a die size of 74 mm².

Memory support differs significantly. The Intel part supports DDR5 memory with an eight-channel bus and a theoretical bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The AMD part supports DDR4 memory, also with an eight-channel bus, but with a lower bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe capabilities also differ: the Xeon offers Gen 5 with 80 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC offers Gen 4 without a specified lane count.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 4677, while AMD uses Socket SP3. The Xeon Bronze 3408U was released in January 2023, while the EPYC 7452 was released in August 2019, making the Intel part a newer design.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7452 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U has 8 cores and 8 threads. This gives the EPYC a 4x advantage in core count and an 8x advantage in thread count.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7452 in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 7452 scores 38993 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to 8473 for the Xeon Bronze 3408U. This represents a 78.3% advantage for the AMD processor.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U supports DDR5 with a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, while the AMD EPYC 7452 supports DDR4 with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both use eight-channel memory buses and support ECC.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7452 has a shared 128 MB L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U has a 22.5 MB L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 is roughly 5.7 times larger.

Q: What is the process node and foundry for each?

A: The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U uses a 10 nm process from Intel, while the AMD EPYC 7452 uses a 7 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Does the Intel processor have any benchmark wins over the AMD?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head comparisons, the AMD EPYC 7452 wins all six Cinebench tests, with the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U recording zero wins.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The core count difference is the most striking: 8 cores versus 32 cores, and 8 threads versus 64 threads. Clock speeds favor the AMD part, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz versus 1.80 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz versus 1.90 GHz. Thermal design power also differs, with the Intel part rated at 125 W and the AMD part at 155 W.

The process node and foundry differ: Intel uses 10 nm from its own fabs, while AMD uses 7 nm from TSMC. The AMD part also has a listed transistor count of 3,800 million and a die size of 74 mm², while the Intel part has no such data recorded. Cache sizes differ across all levels: L1 is 80 KB per core on Intel versus 96 KB per core on AMD; L2 is 2 MB per core on Intel versus 512 KB per core on AMD; L3 is 22.5 MB on Intel versus 128 MB shared on AMD.

Memory support differs by generation: DDR5 for Intel, DDR4 for AMD. The memory bus is eight-channel for both, but bandwidth is 256.0 GB/s for Intel and 204.8 GB/s for AMD. PCIe generation differs: Gen 5 with 80 lanes for Intel, Gen 4 for AMD. The sockets are different: Socket 4677 for Intel, Socket SP3 for AMD. Release dates are also distinct: January 2023 for Intel, August 2019 for AMD. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $425, while the AMD part has no recorded launch price.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent pattern of dominance for the AMD EPYC 7452. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 3930 against the Xeon's 853, a 78.3% advantage. The R15 single-core test shows 554 versus 120, also a 78.3% gap. This same relative margin appears across every test, which is unusual in benchmark data.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC 7452 scores 16377 in multi-core, while the Xeon Bronze 3408U scores 3558. The single-core R20 results are 2312 for AMD and 502 for Intel. Again, the delta is exactly 78.3%. In Cinebench R23, the EPYC scores 38993 multi-core and 5505 single-core, while the Xeon scores 8473 and 1196, respectively.

The consistency of the 78.3% delta across all six tests suggests that the performance difference is primarily due to architectural and core-count advantages, not workload-specific behavior. The EPYC 7452 has 4 times the cores and roughly 1.7 to 1.8 times the boost clock, which combined with a larger cache and newer process node, produces a uniform performance gap.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U has an average score of 12019 across its full benchmark suite, which includes PassMark tests, placing it in the 67th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD EPYC 7452 has an average score of 11279 from its Cinebench-only suite, placing it in the 66th percentile. These percentiles are close, but the average scores are not directly comparable because they are computed from different test sets.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: for any workload that benefits from raw compute throughput, the AMD EPYC 7452 is the superior processor. Its 32 cores and 64 threads deliver roughly 4.6 times the multi-core Cinebench R23 score of the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U, and the single-core advantage is similar in relative terms. The EPYC's larger L3 cache (128 MB versus 22.5 MB) and higher clock speeds (3.35 GHz boost versus 1.90 GHz) contribute to this result.

The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U does have some advantages in the specification sheet: DDR5 memory support with higher bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s), PCIe Gen 5 with 80 lanes, and a lower TDP of 125 W versus 155 W. It also has a newer release date and a recorded launch MSRP of $425. However, none of these features translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

For buyers choosing between these two, the decision depends entirely on workload requirements. If the task is heavily parallel and can use 32 cores, the EPYC 7452 is the clear choice based on performance. If the workload is memory-bandwidth sensitive and benefits from DDR5, or if PCIe Gen 5 connectivity is essential, the Intel part has a specification-level appeal, but it cannot match the EPYC's compute performance. The percentile rankings are close (67th versus 66th), but the direct head-to-head scores show a decisive winner. The AMD EPYC 7452 is the processor to select for maximum benchmark performance in this comparison.