AMD EPYC 7551 vs Intel Xeon Gold 5317 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 across all six Cinebench comparisons, with the AMD EPYC 7551 trailing by a consistent margin in every test. The narrowest gap appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Intel part scores 2338 against the EPYC's 2227, a 4.7% deficit. The single-core R15 result tells a similar story: Intel at 330, AMD at 314, a 4.8% difference.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds precisely. The Intel Xeon Gold 5317 posts 9743 in multi-core versus 9280 for the EPYC 7551, again a 4.8% gap. Single-core R20 shows Intel at 1375 and AMD at 1309, maintaining that exact 4.8% delta. The consistency across R15 and R20 suggests a stable per-thread performance advantage for the Ice Lake architecture, rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

The most demanding test, Cinebench R23, repeats the identical margin. Intel's multi-core score of 23199 outpaces AMD's 22096 by 4.8%. Single-core R23 follows with 3275 versus 3119, once more a 4.8% separation. This uniformity across three generations of the Cinebench suite, from R15 through R23, indicates that the performance relationship between these two processors is remarkably consistent regardless of test version or workload intensity.

The average benchmark score, computed across all six recorded tests, reinforces this picture. The Intel Xeon Gold 5317 averages 6710, while the AMD EPYC 7551 averages 6391. That 319-point difference represents roughly a 4.75% overall advantage for Intel. Notably, both processors sit at the 62nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, placing them in the same performance tier despite the Intel part's consistent lead within that tier.

For context, the EPYC 7551's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i9-10920X, which scores 6347 (0.7% behind the EPYC), and the Intel Core i7-12800HE at 6467 (1.2% ahead). The Xeon Gold 5317's closest competitors include the Intel Xeon D-2775TE at 6711 (essentially tied at 0% delta) and the AMD EPYC 72F3 at 6700 (0.2% behind Intel). These neighboring scores highlight how both CPUs occupy a crowded mid-upper tier, but the Xeon Gold 5317 sits at the top of that cluster.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the multi-core Cinebench R23 test, and by how much?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5317 wins with a score of 23199, while the AMD EPYC 7551 scores 22096. This represents a 4.8% advantage for Intel.

Q: How do these processors compare on single-core performance?

A: Intel leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 3275 versus AMD's 3119, a 4.8% gap. The same margin appears in R15 (330 vs 314) and R20 (1375 vs 1309).

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5317 has an average benchmark score of 6710 across all recorded tests. The AMD EPYC 7551 averages 6391. Intel's average is approximately 5% higher.

Q: Do both processors sit in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are recorded at the 62nd percentile against all CPUs in the database. Despite Intel's consistent lead in direct head-to-head tests, both parts occupy the same overall performance tier.

Q: How does the EPYC 7551 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The EPYC 7551's closest competitor is the Intel Core i9-10920X at 6347, just 0.7% behind. The Intel Core i7-12800HE sits 1.2% ahead at 6467, and the Intel Xeon D-2796TE leads by 1.8% at 6510.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5317 boosts to 3.60 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7551 boosts to 3.00 GHz. Intel's base clock is also higher at 3.00 GHz versus AMD's 2.00 GHz base.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points decisively toward the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 for any workload where Cinebench performance is representative. Across all six recorded tests, Intel wins by a uniform 4.7% to 4.8% margin. This consistency extends from single-core to multi-core and across every version of the Cinebench suite. The Xeon Gold 5317 achieves this with only 12 cores and 24 threads, compared to the EPYC 7551's 32 cores and 64 threads. That fact carries significant weight: Intel's architectural efficiency per core more than compensates for AMD's threefold core-count advantage in these tests.

However, the EPYC 7551 remains relevant for scenarios that the Cinebench suite does not directly measure. The database records show AMD's part with 32 cores and 64 threads, along with 64 MB of shared L3 cache and eight-channel DDR4 memory support. Workloads that scale with raw thread count or benefit from large shared caches could favor the EPYC despite its lower per-thread performance. The 180 W TDP also indicates substantial power headroom, though the Xeon Gold 5317's 150 W TDP is lower while delivering better Cinebench results.

The average benchmark scores place both processors at the same 62nd percentile, meaning neither is an outlier in the broader CPU landscape. The Xeon Gold 5317's average of 6710 edges out the EPYC 7551's 6391, but both cluster near comparable parts like the Xeon D-2775TE (6711) and EPYC 72F3 (6700). For users prioritizing maximum performance in threaded rendering or computation tasks as measured by Cinebench, the data clearly favors the Intel Xeon Gold 5317. For users who need the highest core and thread counts available, or who value the EPYC's larger L3 cache and unlocked multiplier, the AMD part offers distinct advantages that the benchmarks do not capture.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in core configuration. The AMD EPYC 7551 provides 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 provides 12 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds also diverge substantially: AMD runs at 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost, while Intel runs at 3.00 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. Thermal design power differs by 30 W, with AMD at 180 W and Intel at 150 W.

The cache hierarchies reflect different design philosophies. AMD allocates 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. Intel allocates 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The total L3 capacity strongly favors AMD, though Intel's larger per-core L2 may benefit certain access patterns.

Platform support differs in the PCIe generation and lane count. The EPYC 7551 uses PCIe Gen 3, while the Xeon Gold 5317 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes available to the CPU. Memory bandwidth also favors Intel: 187.7 GB/s versus AMD's 170.6 GB/s, though both use eight-channel DDR4 with ECC support.

The sockets are not interchangeable: AMD uses Socket SP3, Intel uses Socket 4189. The multiplier is unlocked on the EPYC 7551 but locked on the Xeon Gold 5317. Release dates are separated by nearly four years: the EPYC launched in June 2017, the Xeon Gold in April 2021.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7551 belongs to AMD's EPYC 7001 series, built on the Zen architecture with the codename Naples. It uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The Xeon Gold 5317 belongs to Intel's Ice Lake-SP generation, using the Ice Lake architecture on a 10 nm process from Intel. The database does not record transistor count or die size for the Intel part.

The core designs differ in their fundamental approach. AMD's Zen architecture with 32 physical cores relies on thread count and shared L3 capacity to deliver throughput. Intel's Ice Lake architecture with 12 physical cores emphasizes higher clocks and per-core efficiency. This is evident in the benchmark results: Intel's 12 cores at 3.60 GHz boost outperform AMD's 32 cores at 3.00 GHz boost in every Cinebench test, including multi-core workloads.

The generation gap matters. The EPYC 7551 launched in June 2017, while the Xeon Gold 5317 launched in April 2021, nearly four years later. The 10 nm process node used by Intel is more advanced than the 14 nm node used by AMD, and Ice Lake represents a newer architectural generation than Zen. Both processors support DDR4 memory with ECC and eight-channel configurations, though Intel achieves higher peak bandwidth.

The PCIe implementation differs meaningfully: AMD provides Gen 3, Intel provides Gen 4 with 64 lanes reserved for CPU usage. This could affect I/O-heavy workloads that require high-bandwidth peripherals or accelerators. The Xeon Gold's Gen 4 support doubles the per-lane bandwidth compared to Gen 3, which may matter for storage arrays or GPU interconnects.

The socket platforms are entirely separate, which means any purchasing decision locks into a specific motherboard ecosystem. AMD's Socket SP3 and Intel's Socket 4189 are not cross-compatible. The EPYC 7551's unlocked multiplier offers overclocking flexibility, while the Xeon Gold 5317's locked multiplier keeps operation at stock settings. For server deployments, the locked multiplier on Intel's part may be seen as a stability feature, while AMD's unlocked option appeals to users who want manual tuning.

The cache architecture reveals another key difference. AMD's 64 MB shared L3 cache is more than three times larger than Intel's 18 MB. However, Intel's per-core L2 is double AMD's (1 MB versus 512 KB), and its per-core L1 is smaller (64 KB versus 96 KB). These trade-offs affect how each processor handles different working sets, though the Cinebench results suggest Intel's overall memory hierarchy is better tuned for these specific workloads.