AMD EPYC 7601 vs Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7601 across all six Cinebench comparisons. Every head-to-head result, from the older R15 workload to the more recent R23, shows the AMD part ahead by a consistent 5.8% margin. This uniformity is striking: the same delta appears in both single-core and multi-core tests, which suggests the advantage is structural rather than workload-dependent.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7601 scores 3003 against the Xeon Gold 5318Y's 2839. The single-core R15 result shows 423 versus 400, again a 5.8% lead. Moving to R20, the multi-core gap remains identical in percentage terms: 12516 for AMD versus 11830 for Intel. The R20 single-core test follows the same pattern at 1766 versus 1669. The R23 results continue the trend: 29800 versus 28168 in multi-core, and 4207 versus 3976 in single-core.

The consistency of the 5.8% delta across every benchmark is notable. It implies that the EPYC 7601's advantage is not tied to any particular instruction mix or threading pattern. The AMD processor simply delivers a slightly higher throughput per clock across all measured scenarios. For a workload that scales with cores, the EPYC 7601 has 32 cores versus 24 for the Xeon, yet the margin is only 5.8%, which indicates that the Xeon's per-core efficiency is competitive despite its lower core count. The Xeon's higher boost clock of 3.40 GHz versus 3.20 GHz likely narrows the gap in single-threaded tasks, but it is not enough to overcome the AMD part's lead.

The overall average benchmark score places the EPYC 7601 at 8619, while the Xeon Gold 5318Y sits at 8147. That is a 5.8% difference in the aggregate, matching the head-to-head deltas. The percentile rankings are close: the EPYC 7601 lands at the 65th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Xeon Gold 5318Y is at the 64th. These percentiles put both processors in the upper tier of recorded results, but the AMD part holds a slight edge in every direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The AMD EPYC 7601 uses the Zen architecture with the Naples codename, built on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y uses the Ice Lake architecture with the Ice Lake-SP codename, built on a 10 nm process by Intel. The newer process node for Intel does not translate into a performance win in the recorded benchmarks, which is a curious finding worth investigating.

The core counts differ significantly: the EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Xeon Gold 5318Y has 24 cores and 48 threads. The AMD part also has a larger L3 cache at 64 MB shared, compared to 36 MB shared for Intel. However, the per-core cache layouts differ: AMD provides 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, while Intel provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. The Intel part has double the L2 per core, which may help with certain working sets, but the larger shared L3 on the AMD side appears to provide a net benefit in the recorded tests.

Memory support is similar in width: both use DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus. The measured memory bandwidth favors Intel: 187.7 GB/s for the Xeon Gold 5318Y versus 170.6 GB/s for the EPYC 7601. That is a roughly 10% bandwidth advantage for Intel, yet it does not show up as a win in any Cinebench test. The PCIe generation differs: the EPYC 7601 supports PCIe Gen 3, while the Xeon Gold 5318Y supports PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only). The newer PCIe standard on the Intel side is a feature advantage for storage and accelerator connectivity, but it has no bearing on the CPU compute benchmarks recorded here.

The socket platforms are entirely different: AMD uses Socket SP3, while Intel uses Socket 4189. The EPYC 7601 has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Xeon Gold 5318Y does not. The TDP figures are close: 180 watts for AMD versus 165 watts for Intel. The AMD part is from the EPYC 7001 series, released in June 2017, while the Intel part is from the Xeon Gold family, released in April 2021. This four-year gap in release dates makes the consistent performance lead of the older AMD part even more interesting: the newer Intel silicon, on a smaller process node, cannot surpass the older Zen design in the measured workloads.

Where Each One Wins

Looking strictly at the recorded benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 7601 wins every single comparison. There is no benchmark in the database where the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y comes out ahead. This makes the use-case split straightforward: if the workload is Cinebench-based rendering or similar multi-threaded compute, the EPYC 7601 is the better choice.

The AMD part's advantage holds in both single-threaded and multi-threaded tests. The single-core wins are particularly notable because the Xeon Gold 5318Y has a higher boost clock (3.40 GHz versus 3.20 GHz) and a more modern architecture. Despite those factors, the EPYC 7601 scores 5.8% higher in every single-core test. This suggests that the Zen architecture's per-core efficiency, or perhaps the memory subsystem and cache hierarchy, compensates for the lower boost clock.

For multi-threaded workloads, the EPYC 7601 has a clear core-count advantage: 32 cores versus 24. Yet the 5.8% delta is smaller than the 33% core-count difference would imply. This indicates that the Xeon Gold 5318Y scales well across its 24 cores, and each individual core is doing more work per clock in the multi-threaded tests. The Intel part's larger L2 cache (1 MB per core versus 512 KB) may contribute to this efficiency. However, the EPYC 7601's larger L3 cache and higher core count still win the day.

The Xeon Gold 5318Y does have advantages in areas not covered by the Cinebench benchmarks. Its memory bandwidth is higher (187.7 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s), and its PCIe Gen 4 support with 64 lanes is a generation ahead of the EPYC 7601's PCIe Gen 3. For workloads that are heavily memory-bandwidth-bound or rely on fast I/O, the Intel part could be the better fit, but the recorded data does not include such tests. In the field of CPU compute as measured by Cinebench, the AMD EPYC 7601 wins all six comparisons.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 scores 29800, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y scores 28168. The AMD part leads by 5.8%.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare in Cinebench R20?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 scores 1766, and the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y scores 1669. The AMD part is ahead by 5.8%.

Q: What is the core count difference between the two processors?

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

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth rating?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y has a higher memory bandwidth at 187.7 GB/s, compared to 170.6 GB/s for the AMD EPYC 7601.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile in the database?

A: They are close but not identical. The AMD EPYC 7601 is at the 65th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y is at the 64th percentile.

Q: Does the Intel processor support a newer PCIe standard?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y supports PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD EPYC 7601 supports PCIe Gen 3.

Q: Which processor was released more recently?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y was released in April 2021, while the AMD EPYC 7601 was released in June 2017.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7601 outperforms the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y in every recorded benchmark. The consistent 5.8% lead across all six Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, makes this a straightforward recommendation for compute-intensive workloads. If the task is CPU rendering or similar multi-threaded processing, the EPYC 7601 is the better choice according to the measurements.

The Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y is not without merit. Its higher memory bandwidth and PCIe Gen 4 support are meaningful for certain server workloads, particularly those involving large data movement or fast storage arrays. The Xeon also has a lower TDP (165 watts versus 180 watts), which could be a consideration in dense server deployments. However, the recorded benchmark data shows no scenario where the Intel part wins.

For a buyer prioritizing raw compute performance as measured by Cinebench, the AMD EPYC 7601 is the clear pick. Its older release date and larger process node do not hinder it in these tests. The Xeon Gold 5318Y should be considered only if its memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen 4 lanes, or lower power draw are critical requirements, since the CPU compute benchmarks all favor AMD.

The percentile rankings reinforce this: both processors sit near each other in the broader database (65th versus 64th percentile), but the direct head-to-head results give every win to the EPYC 7601. The verdict from the data is simple: for compute workloads, choose the AMD part.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several specification fields. The AMD EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y has 24 cores and 48 threads. The base clocks are close: 2.20 GHz for AMD versus 2.10 GHz for Intel. The boost clocks favor Intel: 3.40 GHz versus 3.20 GHz for AMD. TDP is 180 watts for AMD and 165 watts for Intel.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket SP3, Intel uses Socket 4189. The architectures are entirely different: Zen (Naples) for AMD, Ice Lake (Ice Lake-SP) for Intel. Process nodes differ: 14 nm for AMD (GlobalFoundries), 10 nm for Intel. The AMD part has a die size of 213 mm² and 4,800 million transistors; the Intel part has no recorded die size or transistor count.

Cache configurations differ in both per-core and shared amounts. AMD provides 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 64 MB of shared L3. Intel provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 36 MB of shared L3. Memory bandwidth favors Intel: 187.7 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s for AMD. PCIe support differs: AMD has PCIe Gen 3, Intel has PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only).

The multiplier is unlocked on the AMD EPYC 7601, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y is locked. Release dates are far apart: June 2017 for AMD, April 2021 for Intel. Both support DDR4 memory with eight-channel buses, and both have ECC memory support. Neither has integrated graphics. The AMD part has a recorded part number (PS7601BDVIHAF), while the Intel part does not have one listed.