AMD EPYC 7452 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6314U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U wins every recorded benchmark in this comparison. The database shows six direct head-to-head results, and Intel takes all six. The margin is consistent, narrowly favoring the Xeon Gold 6314U across both single-core and multi-core workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon Gold 6314U scores 4190 against the EPYC 7452's 3930, a 6.2% advantage. The single-core result is nearly identical in percentage terms: 591 versus 554, also a 6.3% gap. The consistency of these margins is notable. A 6.2% delta appears repeatedly in the recorded data.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Xeon Gold 6314U posts 17462 in multi-core, while the EPYC 7452 reaches 16377. That is again a 6.2% difference. In single-core, the Intel part scores 2464 versus 2312, a 6.2% delta. The EPYC 7452's single-core score of 2312 in R20 is higher than its multi-core R15 result of 3930, but the relative positioning against Intel does not change.

Cinebench R23 confirms the trend. Multi-core results show 41578 for the Xeon Gold 6314U and 38993 for the EPYC 7452, a 6.2% gap. Single-core follows at 5869 versus 5505, again 6.2%. No benchmark in the entire set favors AMD. The largest edge for Intel, in percentage terms, is the R15 single-core test at 6.3%, and the smallest is also 6.2%, meaning the spread across all tests is extraordinarily tight.

The average benchmark score metric tells a similar story. The Xeon Gold 6314U averages 12026 across the recorded suite, while the EPYC 7452 averages 11279. That difference is meaningful but modest. The percentile rankings are close as well: the Intel part sits at the 67th percentile among all CPUs in the database, the AMD part at the 66th. These are adjacent positions in the overall distribution.

Nearest rival data places each chip in a different competitive neighborhood. The EPYC 7452's closest match is the Intel Core i5-1145G7 with an identical average score of 11279 and a 0% delta. The AMD EPYC 7402 trails by 0.3%, the AMD EPYC 73F3 by 0.5%, and the Intel Core i3-1305U leads by 0.7%. For the Xeon Gold 6314U, the nearest rival is the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U at 12019, a 0.1% difference. The AMD Ryzen 5 3500X sits 0.2% behind, the Intel Core i3-12100 is 0.2% ahead, and the Intel Core i7-7700 trails by 0.9%. These rival lists show that both processors are tightly grouped with other parts in the database, with no dominant separation from their nearest competitors.

The win count is unambiguous: 0 wins for the EPYC 7452, 6 wins for the Xeon Gold 6314U. Every recorded test, from the older R15 workload to the newer R23, lands in Intel's favor.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U is the faster processor in this head-to-head, and the advantage is uniform across every benchmark category. The 6.2% consistent delta in multi-core tests indicates a structural performance lead rather than a workload-specific quirk. The single-core results reinforce this, with the same approximate margin appearing in R15, R20, and R23.

Who should pick which? Based strictly on benchmark outcomes, the Xeon Gold 6314U is the choice for workloads where measured Cinebench performance matters most. The 6.2% lead in multi-core rendering and computation translates directly to faster completion times in threaded workloads. The 6.3% single-core advantage means even lightly threaded tasks favor Intel.

The EPYC 7452 is not without reasons for selection, but those reasons do not come from the benchmark scores. The AMD part matches the Intel part in core count at 32 cores and 64 threads, and it carries a lower TDP of 155 watts against the Intel's 205 watts. For deployments where thermal envelope or power draw is the limiting factor, the EPYC 7452's lower TDP is a recorded advantage. The AMD part also uses the AMD Socket SP3 platform, which may matter for existing infrastructure. But in raw performance, the database shows no scenario where the EPYC 7452 wins.

The percentile rankings are close enough that neither chip is a radical outlier in the broader CPU landscape. The 66th percentile for AMD and 67th for Intel place both in the upper tier but not at the very top. The average benchmark score gap of 747 points (12026 versus 11279) reflects the consistent per-test margin.

For a buyer optimizing purely for Cinebench-class performance, the answer is the Xeon Gold 6314U. For a buyer constrained by power limits or already invested in the SP3 platform, the EPYC 7452 remains viable, but the benchmark evidence cannot be argued away: Intel wins all six recorded comparisons.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The AMD EPYC 7452 records zero wins.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U leads by 6.2% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The R15 single-core gap is 6.3%.

Q: Do the two processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes. Both the AMD EPYC 7452 and the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U have 32 cores and 64 threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U has an average benchmark score of 12026, while the AMD EPYC 7452 averages 11279. The Intel part also ranks at the 67th percentile versus the AMD part's 66th.

Q: What are their closest rivals in the database?

A: For the AMD EPYC 7452, the closest rival is the Intel Core i5-1145G7 with a 0% delta. For the Intel Xeon Gold 6314U, the closest rival is the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U with a 0.1% delta.

Q: Does the EPYC 7452 have any recorded advantage?

A: The EPYC 7452 has a lower TDP at 155 watts compared to the Xeon Gold 6314U's 205 watts. It also uses the AMD Socket SP3 platform rather than the Intel Socket 4189.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specification fields. The AMD EPYC 7452 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. The Intel Xeon Gold 6314U starts at a base clock of 2.30 GHz and boosts to 3.40 GHz. Intel holds a small clock advantage in both metrics.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The EPYC 7452 is rated at 155 watts, while the Xeon Gold 6314U is rated at 205 watts. That 50-watt difference is the largest gap in the specification sheet.

The sockets are incompatible. AMD uses the AMD Socket SP3, Intel uses the Intel Socket 4189. Process node and foundry also differ: the EPYC 7452 is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the Xeon Gold 6314U uses a 10 nm process at Intel.

Cache layouts diverge significantly. The EPYC 7452 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3. The Xeon Gold 6314U has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 48 MB of shared L3. The total L3 advantage for AMD is 128 MB versus 48 MB, a difference of 80 MB.

Release dates are separated by roughly 20 months. The EPYC 7452 entered production in August 2019, the Xeon Gold 6314U in April 2021. Both are marked as Active in production status.

Memory support is identical in type, bus width, and bandwidth: both use DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. Both support PCIe Gen 4, though the Intel listing specifies 64 lanes for the CPU only. Neither chip has integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The part numbers also differ: the EPYC 7452 is recorded as 100-000000057, the Xeon Gold 6314U as SRKHLCD8068904570101.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures are from different generations and designs. The EPYC 7452 uses the Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome, belonging to the EPYC 7002 series. The Xeon Gold 6314U uses the Ice Lake architecture with the codename Ice Lake-SP, belonging to the Xeon Gold generation.

The process technology differs by node and foundry. AMD's Zen 2 design is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. Intel's Ice Lake-SP design uses a 10 nm process at Intel. The EPYC 7452 lists 3,800 million transistors and a die size of 74 mm². The Xeon Gold 6314U has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Core and thread counts match at 32 cores and 64 threads, but the cache hierarchy is structured differently. The EPYC 7452 allocates more L1 per core (96 KB versus 64 KB) and far more shared L3 (128 MB versus 48 MB). The Xeon Gold 6314U counters with a larger L2 per core at 1 MB versus 512 KB. The net effect is a distinct cache strategy: AMD leans on a massive shared L3 pool, Intel doubles the per-core L2.

Both platforms support eight-channel DDR4 memory with identical bandwidth figures of 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC. PCIe support is Gen 4 on both, with the Intel part explicitly listing 64 lanes for the CPU only. The AMD part lists Gen 4 without a lane count.

The release timeline shows Intel's part arriving later, in April 2021 versus August 2019. Both parts remain in active production per the database.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives Intel a clean sweep, so the win breakdown by workload is straightforward. The Xeon Gold 6314U wins in every Cinebench test category: R15 multi-core, R15 single-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. That covers both heavily threaded rendering workloads and lightly threaded tasks.

For multi-core compute, the Xeon Gold 6314U's 6.2% lead in R15, R20, and R23 means jobs that scale across all 32 cores will finish faster on Intel. The consistency of the margin across three Cinebench versions suggests the advantage is stable regardless of workload intensity or instruction mix within these tests.

For single-core performance, the Xeon Gold 6314U again leads by 6.2% to 6.3%. Applications that depend on a single thread, such as legacy software or latency-sensitive tasks, will see the Intel part pull ahead by roughly the same margin as multi-threaded workloads.

The EPYC 7452 has no benchmark wins to claim. Its recorded advantages are non-performance related. The 155 watt TDP versus 205 watts is a clear win for power-constrained environments. A server chassis limited to lower per-socket power draw could favor the AMD part. The larger 128 MB L3 cache compared to 48 MB may also matter for certain cache-sensitive workloads, though no benchmark in the recorded data isolates that effect.

The socket difference creates a platform-level decision. Systems already built on AMD Socket SP3 can adopt the EPYC 7452 without board changes. Intel Socket 4189 platforms require the Xeon Gold 6314U. The 7 nm process at TSMC versus 10 nm at Intel is an architectural distinction that may influence efficiency discussions, but the only measured efficiency metric in the database, TDP, favors AMD.

In short: the Xeon Gold 6314U wins every recorded performance test, while the EPYC 7452 wins on power envelope and platform compatibility for SP3 users. For raw Cinebench performance, Intel is the pick. For lower power draw and AMD platform continuity, the EPYC 7452 holds its ground, but not on the strength of benchmark scores.