AMD EPYC 7502 vs Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along core-count and workload lines. The AMD EPYC 7502 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark, taking all six Cinebench tests. The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U records no wins in the shared comparison suite, though it does have additional Passmark results that the AMD part does not have in the database. Those Passmark scores, including a multithread score of 9969 and a single-thread score of 1516, give the Bronze a broader measurement footprint, but they do not change the outcome of the six direct comparisons.

The EPYC 7502 dominates in both multi-core and single-core Cinebench testing. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 43940 is roughly five times the Xeon Bronze's 8473. The single-core gap is similarly lopsided: 6203 versus 1196 in R23. This means the AMD part is not merely a many-core brute; it also carries a per-thread advantage in these render workloads. For database workloads that scale with thread count, the EPYC 7502's 32 cores and 64 threads provide an obvious edge. For lightly threaded tasks, the single-core lead still favors the AMD chip.

The Xeon Bronze 3408U, with 8 cores and 8 threads, sits in a different performance class. Its Passmark results show workable throughput in specific operations: data compression scores 95714, integer math scores 22803, and floating point math scores 29142. These figures do not appear in the head-to-head set, so they cannot be directly compared to the EPYC 7502 within the database. The data indicates the Bronze is positioned for entry-level server duty, not for competing with a 32-core EPYC part in render benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations and use different fabrication approaches. The AMD EPYC 7502 is built on Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, on a 7 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U uses Sapphire Rapids architecture on a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry. The node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 10 nm, which in part explains the EPYC's ability to pack 32 cores into a 180 W TDP envelope while the Bronze uses 125 W for 8 cores.

Core and cache configurations diverge sharply. The EPYC 7502 has 32 cores and 64 threads, with 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon Bronze has 8 cores and 8 threads, with 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 22.5 MB of L3. The EPYC's L3 cache is over five times larger, which benefits workloads with large working sets. The Bronze's larger per-core L2 (2 MB versus 512 KB) gives each individual core more local cache, but the total cache footprint is far smaller.

Memory support also separates the two. The EPYC 7502 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and a recorded bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Xeon Bronze uses DDR5, also with an eight-channel bus, and a higher recorded bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The Bronze's newer memory standard provides more theoretical bandwidth, though the EPYC's core advantage may offset this in many workloads. Both support ECC memory, fitting their server positioning.

PCIe capabilities differ by one generation. The EPYC 7502 supports PCIe Gen 4, while the Xeon Bronze supports PCIe Gen 5 with 80 lanes from the CPU. The Bronze's newer PCIe generation offers higher per-lane bandwidth for expansion devices. The EPYC's socket is AMD Socket SP3; the Bronze uses Intel Socket 4677.

The release dates show a generation gap. The EPYC 7502 launched in August 2019, while the Xeon Bronze arrived in January 2023. The Bronze is the newer product by several years, yet its architectural choices prioritize different tradeoffs: fewer cores, higher per-core L2, DDR5 support, and PCIe Gen 5.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six shared Cinebench results all favor the AMD EPYC 7502, with deltas clustered tightly around 419%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 4428 against the Bronze's 853, a 419.1% lead. The R15 single-core result shows 625 versus 120, a 420.8% advantage. These two tests bracket the comparison: the AMD part leads by similar margins in both single-thread and multi-thread render workloads.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. Multi-core: 18454 versus 3558, a 418.7% delta. Single-core: 2605 versus 502, a 418.9% delta. The consistency across R15 and R20 suggests the performance ratio is stable across render engines and workload sizes. The EPYC's architecture scales its advantage without a significant drop-off in either direction.

Cinebench R23, the newest render test in the set, shows 43940 versus 8473 in multi-core (418.6% delta) and 6203 versus 1196 in single-core (418.6% delta). The margins remain nearly identical to the older tests. This uniformity indicates a fundamental per-clock and per-core advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The EPYC 7502 achieves roughly 5.2 times the Bronze's multi-core score and roughly 5.2 times its single-core score across the board.

The delta percentages are remarkably stable, ranging from 418.6% to 420.8%. This narrow band suggests the two chips scale almost perfectly with their core and thread counts in these tests. The EPYC has four times the cores and eight times the threads, and its lead tracks that structural difference closely. The Bronze's higher boost clock, listed as 1900 MHz in the database, does not close the gap in any Cinebench test.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field. Core count: 32 versus 8. Thread count: 64 versus 8. Base clock: 2.50 GHz versus 1800 MHz. Boost clock: 3.35 GHz versus 1900 MHz. TDP: 180 W versus 125 W. The EPYC draws more power but delivers far more compute per socket.

Cache layouts diverge completely. L1 per core: 96 KB versus 80 KB. L2 per core: 512 KB versus 2 MB. L3 total: 128 MB shared versus 22.5 MB. The Bronze gives each core a larger L2, but the EPYC's shared L3 dwarfs the Bronze's entire cache hierarchy.

Memory: DDR4 versus DDR5, both eight-channel, with bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. The Bronze's DDR5 support provides 25% more theoretical bandwidth in the database figures. PCIe: Gen 4 on the AMD part, Gen 5 with 80 CPU lanes on the Intel part. Process node: 7 nm TSMC versus 10 nm Intel. Socket: SP3 versus 4677. Release date: August 2019 versus January 2023. The Bronze's launch MSRP is $425; the EPYC's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database.

Both parts lack integrated graphics and both have locked multipliers. Both target the server and workstation market segment. Both are listed as active in production status. The EPYC's transistor count is recorded at 3,800 million with a die size of 74 mm²; the Bronze's transistor count and die size are not recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502 has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How much larger is the L3 cache on the AMD part?

A: The EPYC 7502 has 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon Bronze 3408U has 22.5 MB of L3, so the EPYC's L3 is more than five times larger.

Q: Which chip supports faster memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U records 256.0 GB/s with DDR5 and an eight-channel bus. The AMD EPYC 7502 records 204.8 GB/s with DDR4 and an eight-channel bus.

Q: What was the launch MSRP of the Intel part?

A: The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U had a launch MSRP of $425. The EPYC 7502's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database.

Q: How consistent are the Cinebench deltas between the two?

A: The deltas range from 418.6% to 420.8% across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, showing a highly uniform performance ratio.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7502 and the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U have ECC memory support enabled.

The Verdict

The data points to different buyers for each chip. The AMD EPYC 7502 is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads where thread count and cache size matter. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, and 128 MB L3 cache deliver Cinebench scores roughly 419% higher than the Bronze across every render test. The consistency of that margin, from R15 through R23, indicates the advantage holds regardless of test generation. Server workloads that can use 64 threads will benefit from the EPYC's parallel throughput.

The Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U suits a different role. Its 8 cores and 8 threads place it in entry-level server territory. The recorded Passmark results show it can handle compression, encryption, and math workloads at modest levels. Its DDR5 memory support and PCIe Gen 5 with 80 CPU lanes give it a modern I/O foundation. The 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth exceeds the EPYC's 204.8 GB/s, which matters for memory-bound tasks. Its 125 W TDP is lower than the EPYC's 180 W, which may appeal to power-constrained deployments.

The single-core numbers reinforce the EPYC's dominance. Its R23 single-core score of 6203 more than quintuples the Bronze's 1196. Even in workloads that use one or two threads, the EPYC 7502 leads. The Bronze's higher boost clock, 1900 MHz versus 3.35 GHz, does not compensate for the architectural gap in these tests.

For render farms, virtualization hosts with high VM density, or database servers that scale across many cores, the AMD EPYC 7502 is the data-backed pick. For simple file servers, light virtualization, or applications that need modern DDR5 and PCIe Gen 5 without heavy compute demands, the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U offers a lower-power alternative with newer I/O. The benchmark record is unambiguous: the EPYC 7502 wins every shared test, and the Bronze's advantages lie in memory generation, PCIe generation, and power envelope rather than raw compute performance.