AMD EPYC 7453 vs Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U Comparison

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7453 is the decisive winner in every single head-to-head test, leaving the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U trailing by roughly 79% across the board. The EPYC 7453 is the only sensible choice for any workload that values raw performance, while the Xeon Bronze 3408U is a low-power entry point that sacrifices nearly all compute capability for a much lower launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 7453 dominates this comparison with a clean sweep of all six head-to-head benchmark wins. Its multi-core scores are 4 to 5 times higher than the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U’s, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 41185 versus 8473. The single-core results are equally lopsided, with the EPYC 7453 scoring 5814 in Cinebench R23 single-core against the Xeon’s 1196. Data indicates the EPYC 7453 is a far more capable server processor for compute-intensive tasks, offering 28 cores and 56 threads compared to the Xeon’s 8 cores and 8 threads.

The Xeon Bronze 3408U is not without purpose, but that purpose is narrow. Its 125W TDP is significantly lower than the EPYC 7453’s 225W, and its launch MSRP of $425 is far below the EPYC’s $1570. For workloads that are lightly threaded, latency-sensitive, or power-constrained, the Xeon’s lower energy draw and cost could be deciding factors. However, the benchmark evidence shows that the EPYC 7453 is the superior processor for virtually all server and workstation applications where throughput matters more than power efficiency or initial expenditure.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U is built on the Sapphire Rapids architecture, manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel. It features 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 22.5 MB of shared L3 cache. The memory subsystem uses DDR5 with an eight-channel bus, delivering a theoretical memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory and offers PCIe Gen 5 with 80 lanes from the CPU.

The AMD EPYC 7453 is a completely different beast. It belongs to the EPYC 7003 series, based on the Zen 3 architecture (codenamed Milan), and is manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It packs 28 cores and 56 threads, with a base clock of 2.75 GHz and a boost clock of 3.45 GHz. Cache sizes differ markedly: 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a large 64 MB shared L3 cache. The EPYC uses DDR4 memory on an eight-channel bus, providing 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. It also supports ECC memory and provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU.

The architectural gulf is clear: the EPYC 7453 offers 3.5 times more cores and 7 times more threads. Its higher clocks, smaller process node, and much larger L3 cache all point toward superior performance. The Xeon counters with newer DDR5 memory support and higher peak memory bandwidth, but the core count disparity is simply too large to overcome.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are overwhelmingly one-sided. In Cinebench R15, the AMD EPYC 7453 scores 4151 in multi-core and 585 in single-core, while the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U scores 853 and 120 respectively. This represents a deltaPct of -79.5% for the Xeon in both tests, meaning the EPYC is nearly five times faster in multi-core and single-core workloads.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The EPYC 7453 achieves 17297 in multi-core and 2441 in single-core, while the Xeon Bronze 3408U manages only 3558 and 502. The deltaPct is -79.4% for both, showing a consistent performance gap. In Cinebench R23, the EPYC 7453 posts 41185 multi-core and 5814 single-core, versus the Xeon’s 8473 and 1196. Again, the deltaPct is -79.4%, confirming that the EPYC’s advantage is uniform across all rendering and compute benchmarks.

These numbers tell a clear story. The EPYC 7453 is not just faster; it is faster by an almost identical percentage across every test, indicating a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific strength. The Xeon Bronze 3408U, with its low clock speeds and lack of hyper-threading, simply cannot compete on any metric of raw compute power.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 scores 5814 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U scores 1196, resulting in a deltaPct of -79.4% for the Xeon.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U support newer memory technology?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U supports DDR5 memory, while the AMD EPYC 7453 uses DDR4. The Xeon also has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s for the EPYC.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U has a launch MSRP of $425, and the AMD EPYC 7453 has a launch MSRP of $1570.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 has a 64 MB shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U has a 22.5 MB L3 cache.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U and the AMD EPYC 7453 have a production status of "Active."

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7453 wins every benchmark tested, making it the clear choice for multi-threaded server workloads. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a score of 41185, which is 4.9 times higher than the Xeon’s 8473. This makes the EPYC the superior option for virtualization, database processing, scientific computing, and any application that can leverage its 56 threads. The single-core results also favor the EPYC, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5814 versus 1196, meaning even lightly threaded tasks run significantly faster on the AMD chip.

The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U, despite losing all benchmarks, has specific advantages that are not captured in compute tests. Its 125W TDP is nearly half the EPYC 7453’s 225W, making it suitable for power-constrained environments or dense deployments where heat dissipation is a challenge. Its launch MSRP of $425 is substantially lower than the EPYC’s $1570, which could be attractive for basic entry-level servers or dedicated tasks that do not require high core counts. Additionally, the Xeon’s support for DDR5 memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth means it could theoretically handle memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads with newer memory technology, though its low core count limits overall throughput.

For most users, the EPYC 7453 is the obvious pick. For those who prioritize low power consumption and minimal upfront cost over raw performance, the Xeon Bronze 3408U has a role, but the data shows that role is niche.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U | AMD EPYC 7453 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 28 |

| Threads | 8 | 56 |

| Base Clock | 1800 MHz | 2.75 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 1900 MHz | 3.45 GHz |

| TDP | 125W | 225W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4677 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Sapphire Rapids | Zen 3 (Milan) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 22.5 MB | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 80 Lanes | Gen 4, 128 Lanes |

| Launch MSRP | $425 | $1570 |

| Part Number | SRMGB | 100-000000319 |

| Release Date | 2023-01-09 | 2021-03-14 |

The specification table highlights the fundamental differences. The EPYC 7453 offers more cores, threads, higher clocks, and a larger L3 cache, all on a more advanced 7 nm process. The Xeon Bronze 3408U counters with newer DDR5 memory support, higher memory bandwidth, and a lower TDP. The decision ultimately rests on whether raw compute throughput (EPYC) or power efficiency and lower cost (Xeon) are the primary requirements.