AMD EPYC 7601 vs Intel Xeon Gold 5318N Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7601 and Intel Xeon Gold 5318N are two server processors built for different eras of data-center computing, yet they land remarkably close in raw Cinebench performance. The data shows the EPYC 7601, a 32-core Naples part from 2017, edges out the newer 24-core Ice Lake-SP Xeon in every single benchmark recorded. However, the margins are consistently slim, hovering around 2.2% across the board. The EPYC 7601 holds a 65th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Xeon Gold 5318N sits just one point behind at 64th. Their average benchmark scores—8619 for AMD and 8433 for Intel—reflect this near-parity, making the choice between them less about raw throughput and more about platform features, power envelopes, and architectural priorities.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7601 is the outright winner in every benchmark category measured, from Cinebench R15 single-core to R23 multi-core. This is a clean sweep of six wins with zero victories for the Intel part. The EPYC 7601’s advantage is consistent, with a 2.2% delta in each test, whether the workload is single-threaded or heavily multi-threaded. This suggests that AMD’s 32-core/64-thread configuration, paired with its Zen architecture, delivers a slight but reliable edge in both lightly threaded and fully saturated workloads. For users running Cinebench-style rendering tasks, the EPYC 7601 is the safer bet for squeezing out a few extra points.

The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N, despite losing every head-to-head, still wins in specific deployment scenarios that are not captured by Cinebench scores. Its 150 TDP is lower than the EPYC 7601’s 180 TDP, which translates to a more power-efficient platform for dense server racks where thermal and power budgets are tight. The Xeon also brings PCIe Gen 4 support with 64 lanes from the CPU, a significant generational leap over the EPYC 7601’s PCIe Gen 3. For workloads that are I/O-bound—such as high-speed NVMe storage arrays or GPU clusters requiring more bandwidth—the Intel part offers a modern connectivity advantage that Cinebench cannot quantify. The Xeon’s higher boost clock of 3.40 GHz, compared to the EPYC’s 3.20 GHz, may also offer a slight edge in bursty, latency-sensitive tasks, though the benchmark data shows this does not translate into a Cinebench win.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318N has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: How much faster is the AMD EPYC 7601 in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 7601 scores 29,800 points compared to the Xeon Gold 5318N’s 29,155 points, a 2.2% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon Gold 5318N have a higher boost clock?

A: Yes, the Xeon Gold 5318N boosts to 3.40 GHz, while the EPYC 7601 boosts to 3.20 GHz. Despite this, the EPYC 7601 still wins in single-core Cinebench tests.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: They are effectively identical. The EPYC 7601 offers 170.6 GB/s, and the Xeon Gold 5318N offers 170.7 GB/s, both using eight-channel DDR4 memory.

Q: Which processor uses a more modern PCIe standard?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N supports PCIe Gen 4 with 64 CPU lanes, while the AMD EPYC 7601 is limited to PCIe Gen 3.

Q: Are both processors still in active production?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7601 and the Intel Xeon Gold 5318N have an active production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably uniform, with the AMD EPYC 7601 winning every test by exactly 2.2%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7601 scores 3,003 against the Xeon’s 2,938, a 65-point margin. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 423 versus 414. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 12,516 for AMD and 12,245 for Intel, while single-core yields 1,766 versus 1,728. The largest absolute difference appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC 7601 posts 29,800 points and the Xeon Gold 5318N trails with 29,155 points—a 645-point spread. In R23 single-core, the margin is 4,207 versus 4,116.

These results indicate that the EPYC 7601’s additional 8 cores and 16 threads provide a meaningful, though not overwhelming, advantage. The consistent 2.2% delta across both single-core and multi-core tests suggests that the Intel part’s higher boost clock and newer architecture are nearly enough to offset AMD’s core-count lead, but not quite. The Xeon Gold 5318N’s nearest rival in the average benchmark score list is the Intel Xeon Gold 5320T, which it beats by 1.4%, while the EPYC 7601’s closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-8565U, a mobile part that scores 0.5% higher. This puts both server chips in a similar performance class, surrounded by low-power mobile and desktop processors in the aggregate rankings.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their core and thread counts. The AMD EPYC 7601 offers 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318N provides 24 cores and 48 threads. Clock speeds differ slightly: the EPYC 7601 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, whereas the Xeon Gold 5318N runs at 2.10 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. Thermal design power is another differentiator, with the AMD part rated at 180 TDP and the Intel part at 150 TDP.

Cache layouts are also distinct. The EPYC 7601 features 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a 64 MB shared L3 cache. The Xeon Gold 5318N has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. Socket compatibility is a hard split: the EPYC 7601 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Xeon Gold 5318N uses Intel Socket 4189. PCIe support differs as well, with the Xeon offering Gen 4 and 64 CPU lanes versus the EPYC’s Gen 3. The EPYC 7601 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon Gold 5318N is locked. Process nodes also differ, with AMD on 14 nm and Intel on 10 nm.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7601 is built on the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, and represents the first-generation EPYC 7001 series. It uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, packing 4,800 million transistors into a 213 mm² die. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N, in contrast, is based on the Ice Lake architecture, specifically Ice Lake-SP, and is manufactured on Intel’s 10 nm node. The Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size, but its architecture is significantly newer, having been released in April 2021 versus the EPYC’s June 2017 debut.

Memory support is similar—both use DDR4 with eight-channel memory buses—but the bandwidth figures are nearly identical at 170.6 GB/s for AMD and 170.7 GB/s for Intel. Both support ECC memory. The cache hierarchy reflects different design philosophies: AMD allocates more L3 (64 MB shared) but less L2 per core, while Intel doubles the L2 per core to 1 MB but cuts the shared L3 to 36 MB. The Xeon Gold 5318N’s PCIe Gen 4 support is a clear architectural advantage, offering double the bandwidth of the EPYC’s Gen 3 interface. The EPYC 7601’s unlocked multiplier is a feature typically absent from Xeon parts, giving system integrators more flexibility for overclocking in server environments, though the Xeon’s locked multiplier is standard for its market segment.