AMD EPYC 7452 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6342 Comparison

The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 and AMD EPYC 7452 are both high-core-count server processors, but benchmark data shows a clear, consistent winner. The Xeon Gold 6342 wins all six Cinebench comparisons, with margins ranging from 2.6% to 2.7% across both single-core and multi-core tests. This makes the Intel part the superior choice for raw compute performance in the tested workloads. The EPYC 7452, while offering more cores and a larger cache, trails in every measured scenario, making it the secondary option unless its architectural advantages—lower power draw and a denser process node—are prioritized. The data does not support selecting the EPYC 7452 on performance alone.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 is the faster processor. It achieves a 2.6% higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23 (40014 vs 38993) and a matching 2.6% lead in single-core (5649 vs 5505). This pattern repeats across all Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23), with the Intel chip winning single-core by 2.7% in R15 and 2.6% in R20, and multi-core by 2.6% in every generation. The consistency of these margins indicates a fundamental per-core advantage for the Intel architecture.

For users prioritizing maximum compute throughput, the Xeon Gold 6342 is the clear pick. Its average benchmark score of 11574 outpaces the EPYC 7452’s 11279, placing it in the 67th percentile of all CPUs versus the EPYC’s 66th. The Intel processor also edges out its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945, by 0.9% in average score, while the EPYC 7452 sits exactly level with the Intel Core i5-1145G7 and trails the AMD EPYC 7402 by 0.3%.

However, the EPYC 7452 is not without merit. It delivers 32 cores and 64 threads compared to the Intel’s 24 cores and 48 threads, yet still loses multi-core tests. This suggests the Intel chip’s higher clock speeds (2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost versus 2.20 GHz and 3.35 GHz) and superior per-core efficiency overcome the core-count deficit. The EPYC’s 155W TDP is significantly lower than the Intel’s 230W, making it the more energy-efficient option for dense server deployments where power density is a constraint.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the Xeon Gold 6342 for absolute performance, as it wins every benchmark. Choose the EPYC 7452 only if the lower 155W TDP and 7nm process are critical for your infrastructure, accepting a 2.6% performance penalty.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 has an average benchmark score of 11574, while the AMD EPYC 7452 scores 11279. This places the Intel part at the 67th percentile of all CPUs and the AMD at the 66th.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel chip leads in multi-core by 2.6% in Cinebench R15 (4033 vs 3930), R20 (16805 vs 16377), and R23 (40014 vs 38993).

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7452 win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 winning all six tests, with the AMD EPYC 7452 recording zero wins.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The AMD EPYC 7452 has 32 cores and 64 threads.

Q: How does the cache size differ between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 has 64 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 36 MB L3 cache. The AMD EPYC 7452 has 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a much larger 128 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the base and boost clock speeds?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The AMD EPYC 7452 runs at 2.20 GHz base and 3.35 GHz boost.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 is built on the Ice Lake-SP architecture using Intel’s 10 nm process node, fabricated in-house. It features 24 cores and 48 threads, with a cache hierarchy of 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, plus a shared 36 MB L3 cache. This configuration is optimized for high clock speeds, with a 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost.

In contrast, the AMD EPYC 7452 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Rome codename, manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process. It packs 32 cores and 64 threads, with a larger per-core L1 cache of 96 KB but a smaller 512 KB L2. Its defining feature is a massive 128 MB shared L3 cache, which is over three times the Intel’s L3 capacity. The EPYC also lists 3,800 million transistors and a 74 mm² die size, though the Intel’s transistor count and die size are not specified.

Both processors support DDR4 memory with eight-channel buses and identical 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth. ECC memory is supported by both. The Intel part uses Socket 4189 with PCIe Gen 4 and 64 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD uses Socket SP3 with PCIe Gen 4 (no lane count specified). The process node difference—10 nm Intel versus 7 nm TSMC—explains the EPYC’s lower 155W TDP versus the Intel’s 230W, despite the AMD having more cores.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a direct trade-off between core count and clock speed. The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 leads in base clock (2.80 GHz vs 2.20 GHz) and boost clock (3.50 GHz vs 3.35 GHz). The AMD EPYC 7452 counters with more cores (32 vs 24) and threads (64 vs 48).

Cache allocation differs significantly: the Intel has 1 MB L2 per core and 36 MB shared L3, while the AMD has 512 KB L2 per core and 128 MB shared L3. L1 cache also differs, with 64 KB per core on Intel and 96 KB on AMD. The process node favors AMD (7 nm vs 10 nm), as does the TDP (155W vs 230W).

The Intel part supports PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD supports PCIe Gen 4 without a lane count specified. Memory support is identical: eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel chip was released on 2021-04-05, while the AMD dates to 2019-08-06. Both are active in production and target the server/workstation segment. Neither has a launch MSRP listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite provides a complete picture, and the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 wins every single test. Starting with multi-core, the Intel leads by 2.6% in Cinebench R15 (4033 vs 3930), R20 (16805 vs 16377), and R23 (40014 vs 38993). The margins are nearly identical, suggesting a stable performance advantage independent of workload intensity.

In single-core tests, the Intel wins by 2.7% in R15 (569 vs 554) and 2.6% in both R20 (2372 vs 2312) and R23 (5649 vs 5505). This is notable because the AMD EPYC has a lower boost clock (3.35 GHz vs 3.50 GHz), which partially explains the deficit. However, the Intel’s per-core advantage is larger than the clock difference alone would suggest, indicating architectural efficiency.

The average benchmark score reinforces the pattern: 11574 for Intel versus 11279 for AMD, a 2.6% gap. The Intel’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 (0.9% behind) and the Intel Core i7-1185G7 (1.1% ahead). The AMD EPYC 7452 sits exactly tied with the Intel Core i5-1145G7 and trails the AMD EPYC 7402 by 0.3%. The EPYC 7452’s best comparison is against the AMD EPYC 73F3, where it trails by 0.5%, while the Intel beats that same EPYC 73F3 by 2.1%.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 wins in every performance category measured. It is faster in single-core by 2.6-2.7%, which benefits workloads that rely on high per-thread performance, such as database transactions, legacy applications, or lightly threaded scientific codes. It also wins multi-core by 2.6%, making it the better choice for heavily threaded rendering, simulation, and compilation tasks, despite having 8 fewer cores.

The AMD EPYC 7452 wins on efficiency and capacity. Its 155W TDP is 75W lower than the Intel’s 230W, making it more suitable for power-constrained data centers or high-density blade servers. The 128 MB L3 cache is a major advantage for workloads with large working sets that fit in cache, such as in-memory databases or virtual machine consolidation, potentially reducing memory latency. The 7nm process node also suggests better thermal density, though no thermal data is provided.

For raw compute, the Xeon Gold 6342 is the definitive winner. For power-conscious deployments with cache-sensitive workloads, the EPYC 7452 offers a compelling alternative, but only if the 2.6% performance penalty is acceptable. The data shows no scenario where the EPYC outperforms the Intel in the tested benchmarks, so its wins are purely in architectural characteristics, not measured speed.