AMD EPYC 7542 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6342 Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison against the AMD EPYC 7542. Across six Cinebench tests, spanning R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core workloads, the Intel part holds a consistent 3.8% advantage in every single instance. The AMD EPYC 7542, despite offering more cores and threads, never manages to close that gap. The recorded average benchmark score tells the same story: the Xeon Gold 6342 sits at 11574, while the EPYC 7542 trails at 11152, a difference of roughly 3.7%.

For buyers choosing between these two, the Xeon Gold 6342 is the pick for raw Cinebench throughput, both in lightly threaded and fully loaded scenarios. The EPYC 7542, with its 32 cores versus 24, would seem the natural choice for heavily parallel workloads, but the benchmark results show that its older Zen 2 architecture does not convert that core count into a win here. The Xeon Gold 6342 also edges ahead in the percentile ranking, sitting at the 67th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the EPYC 7542 sits at the 66th. The margin is slim, but the direction is consistent. The Intel part is the one to choose if maximum multi-threaded rendering scores are the goal. The EPYC 7542 remains a fully capable server processor, but in this direct comparison, it is second place in every measured test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7542 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 has 24 cores and 48 threads. Despite this 8-core and 16-thread deficit, the Intel processor wins all six head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon Gold 6342 scores 40014 against the EPYC 7542's 38555, a 3.8% advantage. The same 3.8% delta appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core (4033 vs 3886) and Cinebench R20 multi-core (16805 vs 16193).

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 boosts to 3.50 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the AMD EPYC 7542's 3.40 GHz boost. The AMD part has the higher base clock at 2.90 GHz compared to Intel's 2.80 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 and the AMD EPYC 7542 support ECC memory. Both also use DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s.

Q: How does the cache configuration differ?

A: The AMD EPYC 7542 has a 128 MB shared L3 cache, substantially larger than the Intel Xeon Gold 6342's 36 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, while the AMD part has 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 is built on the Ice Lake-SP architecture, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process node. It uses the Intel Socket 4189 platform. The AMD EPYC 7542 belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, based on the Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome, and is manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process node. That process difference is significant: 7 nm versus 10 nm, with the AMD chip listing 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die size, while the Intel chip has no transistor or die size figures recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies also diverge sharply. The AMD EPYC 7542 carries a 128 MB shared L3 cache, more than three times the 36 MB shared L3 on the Intel Xeon Gold 6342. Per-core L1 and L2 allocations differ as well: Intel gives each core 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2, while AMD gives each core 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2. The larger L3 on the AMD part reflects the chiplet-based Zen 2 design, where a large shared pool of cache helps mitigate the latency of moving data between core complexes. The Intel part, with its monolithic Ice Lake-SP die, relies on a smaller but more tightly integrated cache structure.

PCI Express support shows a notable difference. The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 lists PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD EPYC 7542 lists simply PCIe Gen 4 without a specific lane count in the data. Both platforms are squarely in the server and workstation segment, both support ECC memory, and both use DDR4 across an eight-channel memory bus with identical 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Neither processor has integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part was released on 2021-04-05, while the AMD part's release date is 2019-08-06, making the EPYC 7542 the older design by roughly a year and a half.

Specification Differences

The table below isolates the fields where the two processors differ, leaving out the many specifications they share.

| Specification | Intel Xeon Gold 6342 | AMD EPYC 7542 |

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

| Cores | 24 | 32 |

| Threads | 48 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 230 W | 225 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4189 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Ice Lake | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Ice Lake-SP | Rome |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 3,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 74 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |

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

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

| Part Number | Not recorded | 100-000000075 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 11574 | 11152 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 67 | 66 |

Both processors have identical memory support: DDR4, eight-channel, 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, ECC enabled. Both target the Server/Workstation market segment, remain in Active production status, and lack integrated graphics. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkable for their uniformity. Every single test, from Cinebench R15 single-core to Cinebench R23 multi-core, produces the exact same 3.8% delta in favor of the Intel Xeon Gold 6342. There is no test where the AMD EPYC 7542 comes out ahead, and no test where the gap widens or narrows.

Starting with multi-core performance, the largest absolute gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon Gold 6342 scores 40014 against the EPYC 7542's 38555. That is a 1,459-point difference, translating to the same 3.8% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Intel part scores 16805 versus 16193, a 612-point gap. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the scores are 4033 and 3886, a 147-point gap. The pattern holds across all three Cinebench versions: the Intel chip wins multi-threaded rendering by a consistent margin, despite having 8 fewer cores and 16 fewer threads.

Single-core performance follows the identical trajectory. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon Gold 6342 scores 5649 against 5443 for the EPYC 7542. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the result is 2372 versus 2286. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the scores are 569 versus 548. Each of these represents a 3.8% lead for the Intel processor. The consistency of this delta across different Cinebench versions and across single and multi-threaded tests suggests a fundamental per-clock or per-architecture advantage, not a workload-specific quirk. The higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz versus 3.40 GHz, combined with the newer Ice Lake architecture, appears to give the Intel part a decisive edge in every scenario the database measures.

The average benchmark score reinforces the head-to-head data. The Xeon Gold 6342 averages 11574 across its benchmark suite, while the EPYC 7542 averages 11152. The nearest rivals in the database also frame these scores: the Xeon Gold 6342 sits within 0.9% of the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 7945 (11469) and 2.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 73F3 (11334). The EPYC 7542, meanwhile, sits within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 9224 (11118) and within 0.4% of the Intel Core i3-1305U (11200). The Intel part's rivals cluster slightly higher, and its own score confirms it belongs in that upper tier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Gold 6342 wins everywhere the database measures. It takes all six head-to-head benchmarks, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads across three Cinebench versions. The 3.8% advantage in single-core tests points to better per-thread performance, likely aided by the 3.50 GHz boost clock and the newer Ice Lake core design. The 3.8% advantage in multi-core tests is more surprising given the core deficit, but the data is consistent: 24 Ice Lake cores outpace 32 Zen 2 cores in every rendering workload tested. The Xeon Gold 6342 also holds a higher percentile ranking (67th versus 66th) and a higher average benchmark score (11574 versus 11152). For any workload that resembles Cinebench, whether lightly threaded or fully saturated, the Intel processor is the clear choice.

The AMD EPYC 7542 has no benchmark wins in this comparison, but the data still defines its profile. It offers more cores (32 versus 24) and more threads (64 versus 48), which in principle favors heavily parallel server workloads beyond the scope of Cinebench. It has a larger L3 cache (128 MB versus 36 MB), a more advanced 7 nm process node, a lower TDP of 225 W compared to 230 W, and a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz versus 2.80 GHz. Those specifications do not translate into Cinebench victories, but they define a processor that competes on density, cache capacity, and power efficiency rather than raw rendering speed. In the database's recorded measurements, however, the EPYC 7542 trails in every test, and the Intel Xeon Gold 6342 is the winner across the board.