AMD EPYC 7502 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6348 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7502 and Intel Xeon Gold 6348 are two very close server processors, separated by less than half a percent in average benchmark scores. Both sit at the 67th percentile of all CPUs, making them peers in overall performance, yet their architectural approaches and physical specifications reveal distinct strengths that matter for specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a remarkably consistent pattern: the Intel Xeon Gold 6348 wins every single Cinebench test, but by margins so small they are nearly statistical noise. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel scores 4441 against the AMD's 4428, a 0.3% advantage. The single-core R15 test goes the same way: 626 for Intel versus 625 for AMD, a 0.2% edge. This pattern repeats across every workload. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, Intel leads 18507 to 18454, again 0.3% ahead. The R20 single-core result is 2612 versus 2605, a 0.3% win for Intel. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 44066 for Intel against 43940 for AMD, and R23 single-core shows 6221 versus 6203 — both 0.3% margins in Intel's favor.

What does this mean in practice? The data indicates that for pure CPU rendering and compute tasks, the two chips are functionally interchangeable in performance. The largest gap anywhere is only 0.3%, which would not be perceptible in real-world use. Notably, the AMD EPYC 7502 manages to nearly match the Intel despite having 32 cores and 64 threads versus Intel's 28 cores and 56 threads. That is a 14% core advantage for AMD, yet the benchmark scores are essentially tied — a strong signal that per-core performance favors Intel substantially, while AMD relies on its extra cores to close the gap.

The average benchmark scores confirm this parity: Intel's average is 12746, while AMD's is 12709. The nearest rival lists show the two chips are closer to each other than to any other CPU, with a deltaPct of just 0.3% between them. The Intel Core i5-8400 sits 0.2% above the Intel Xeon, and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X sits 0.3% above — meaning all four chips in this performance tier are within a fraction of a percent of each other.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6348 has 28 cores and 56 threads. AMD enjoys a 4-core and 8-thread advantage.

Q: Does the extra core count translate into better benchmark performance?

A: No. Despite having more cores, the AMD EPYC 7502 loses every Cinebench test to the Intel Xeon Gold 6348, albeit by tiny margins of 0.2% to 0.3%. The Intel chip wins all six head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6348 has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The AMD EPYC 7502 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. Intel is faster in both metrics.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6348 has a TDP of 235 watts, while the AMD EPYC 7502 has a TDP of 180 watts. The AMD chip draws significantly less power.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon Gold 6348 and the AMD EPYC 7502 support ECC memory. Both also use DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and identical 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What manufacturing processes are used?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6348 is built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 7502 uses TSMC's 7 nm process. The AMD chip also has a listed transistor count of 3,800 million and a die size of 74 mm²; no transistor or die size data is available for Intel.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Gold 6348 uses the Ice Lake-SP architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process node. It is a monolithic design with 28 cores and 56 threads, arranged with a per-core L1 cache of 64 KB and per-core L2 cache of 1 MB, plus a shared 42 MB L3 cache. The chip supports PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes from the CPU and fits the Intel Socket 4189.

The AMD EPYC 7502 belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, using the Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome. It is manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process, with 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. AMD's design uses 32 cores and 64 threads, with a larger per-core L1 cache of 96 KB but a smaller per-core L2 cache of 512 KB. The L3 cache jumps to 128 MB shared, which is triple the Intel's 42 MB. AMD's chip uses the AMD Socket SP3 and supports PCIe Gen 4, though the lane count is not specified in the data.

These architectural differences explain the benchmark parity. AMD's 7 nm process and larger L3 cache help its extra cores work efficiently, while Intel's higher clock speeds and larger per-core L2 cache boost its single-thread performance. The Intel chip boosts to 3.50 GHz versus AMD's 3.35 GHz, and it holds a 0.10 GHz base clock advantage as well. Both support DDR4 memory in eight-channel configurations with identical 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory, making them appropriate for server and workstation use.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon Gold 6348 wins all six head-to-head tests, but the margins are so small — never more than 0.3% — that the winner is more symbolic than practical. For anyone choosing between these two, the deciding factors come from outside the raw Cinebench scores. The AMD EPYC 7502 offers four additional cores and eight additional threads, which suggests it may handle heavily parallel workloads better, even though Cinebench multi-core did not show an advantage. The AMD chip also has a significantly lower TDP of 180 watts versus 235 watts for Intel, meaning it can be easier to cool and may fit into lower-power server chassis. The Intel chip counters with higher clock speeds and a more modern release date of April 2021 versus August 2019 for AMD, indicating it is the newer platform. Both are active production parts, so either remains a viable purchase today. The data suggests picking based on platform preference, power budget, or core-count needs — not on benchmark deltas, which are negligible.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon Gold 6348 | AMD EPYC 7502 |

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

| Cores | 28 | 32 |

| Threads | 56 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.35 GHz |

| TDP | 235 W | 180 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4189 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Ice Lake | Zen 2 |

| Process Node | 10 nm (Intel) | 7 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | Not listed | 3,800 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 74 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 96 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 512 KB per core |

| L3 Cache | 42 MB shared | 128 MB shared |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 64 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4 |

| Release Date | 2021-04-05 | 2019-08-06 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Gold 6348 wins on every benchmark in the data set, but the margins are thin. Its strongest case is single-core performance, where it edges ahead by 0.2% to 0.3% in R15, R20, and R23 tests. This makes it the default choice for workloads that are sensitive to single-thread speed, such as legacy software, database queries with limited parallelism, or lightly threaded applications. The higher clock speeds — 2.60 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost — support this advantage. Intel also wins on cache architecture per core for L2, with 1 MB versus 512 KB, which can help latency-sensitive tasks.

The AMD EPYC 7502 wins on core count, offering 32 cores versus 28, and on power efficiency with a 180-watt TDP versus 235 watts. It also has a much larger L3 cache at 128 MB versus 42 MB, which benefits workloads with large working sets that fit in cache, such as virtualization, in-memory databases, or scientific computing. The AMD chip is built on a more advanced 7 nm process from TSMC, and its lower power draw means it can be deployed in denser configurations or with cheaper cooling solutions. For heavily threaded workloads that can scale beyond 28 cores but not beyond 32, the AMD has headroom that Intel lacks. Neither chip has integrated graphics, so both require a discrete GPU for display output, though that is typical for server parts. The AMD chip's larger L3 cache and extra cores make it the better fit for high-core-count parallel workloads, while the Intel chip's clock speed advantage suits latency-sensitive and single-threaded tasks.