AMD EPYC 7601 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6330 Comparison

The Intel Xeon Gold 6330 and AMD EPYC 7601 are both established server processors aimed at dual-socket and single-socket workloads, yet they represent very different design philosophies and eras of silicon. The data shows a consistent, if narrow, performance advantage for the Intel part across every Cinebench iteration tested, despite the AMD chip offering more cores and threads. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural underpinnings, and the specific use cases where each processor holds an edge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably uniform, with the Intel Xeon Gold 6330 winning all six Cinebench tests. The margin of victory is nearly identical across the board, hovering around 3.7-3.8%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon Gold 6330 scores 3115 against the EPYC 7601's 3003, a 3.7% delta. The single-core R15 result is slightly wider, with Intel winning 439 to 423, a 3.8% advantage.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Intel part posts 12980 multi-core versus 12516 for AMD, again a 3.7% lead. Single-core R20 sees Intel at 1832 and AMD at 1766, a 3.7% delta. The most demanding test, Cinebench R23, shows the same story: Intel wins 30906 to 29800 in multi-core and 4363 to 4207 in single-core, both with a 3.7% difference.

The consistency of the delta is striking. It suggests that the performance gap is not workload-dependent within the Cinebench suite but rather a fundamental throughput difference per clock, mitigated by the EPYC's additional cores. The EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Xeon Gold 6330 has 28 cores and 56 threads. Despite having 14.3% more cores, the AMD part still trails by roughly 3.7% in multi-threaded rendering. This indicates the Intel architecture extracts significantly more work per core per clock cycle in these tests. The average benchmark scores reflect this broader trend: the Xeon Gold 6330 averages 8939, while the EPYC 7601 averages 8619, a difference of about 3.7% as well. Both processors sit at the 65th percentile among all CPUs, meaning their aggregate performance is comparable, but the Intel chip consistently edges ahead in this specific head-to-head.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The Intel Xeon Gold 6330 is an Ice Lake-SP part, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process. The AMD EPYC 7601, codenamed Naples, uses the original Zen architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. This generational gap explains much of the performance difference: the newer 10 nm node allows Intel to pack more efficient transistors, while the older 14 nm process limits AMD's clock speeds and power efficiency.

Core counts diverge significantly. The EPYC 7601 provisions 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Xeon Gold 6330 offers 28 cores and 56 threads. Cache hierarchies also differ. Intel allocates 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 42 MB L3 pool. AMD's design uses a larger 96 KB L1 per core but a smaller 512 KB L2, and compensates with a much larger 64 MB shared L3. The larger L3 cache on the EPYC could benefit certain data-heavy workloads, but the Xeon's per-core L2 advantage helps with latency-sensitive tasks.

Memory support is another key divider. Both use DDR4 and eight-channel memory buses, but Intel achieves a peak memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s versus AMD's 170.6 GB/s. This 20% bandwidth advantage for Intel is significant for memory-bound server applications. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Xeon Gold 6330 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC 7601 is limited to PCIe Gen 3. The newer PCIe standard doubles the per-lane bandwidth, making the Intel platform more future-proof for high-speed storage and accelerators.

The socket and platform are entirely different. Intel uses Socket 4189, while AMD uses Socket SP3. The EPYC 7601 has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, whereas the Xeon Gold 6330 is locked. Power draw also favors the AMD part: the EPYC 7601 has a 180 W TDP, while the Xeon Gold 6330 consumes 205 W. This 25 W difference means the AMD chip delivers its 32 cores on a lower thermal budget, though the Intel chip still outperforms it in these benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Gold 6330 wins every benchmark in this comparison, so the clear verdict is that it is the faster processor for Cinebench rendering workloads. Its single-core performance is particularly notable, winning by 3.8% in R15 and 3.7% in both R20 and R23. This translates to better responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks and faster compilation times for single-threaded build steps. The multi-core wins, while smaller in percentage, are also decisive: 3.7% ahead in R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests.

The AMD EPYC 7601, despite losing all benchmarks, holds advantages that are not captured in Cinebench scores. Its larger 64 MB L3 cache and 32-core count make it a potentially stronger candidate for certain virtualized environments or database workloads where cache capacity and raw core count matter more than per-core speed. The lower 180 W TDP is a meaningful operational advantage in dense server deployments where power and cooling are constrained. For workloads that scale perfectly with core count and are not bound by memory bandwidth, the EPYC's extra 4 cores could close the gap or even reverse it, though the Cinebench results show that Intel's per-core efficiency is formidable.

The Intel part also wins on platform features. PCIe Gen 4 support and higher memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s vs 170.6 GB/s) make it the better choice for next-generation NVMe storage arrays and high-throughput networking. The Xeon Gold 6330 is also a newer release, launched in April 2021, versus the EPYC 7601's June 2017 launch, meaning it benefits from years of additional architectural refinement.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6330 has 28 cores and 56 threads. Despite having more cores, the AMD part trails in all Cinebench tests.

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

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6330 leads by 3.7% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. For example, in R23 multi-core, Intel scores 30906 versus AMD's 29800.

Q: Which processor offers better single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6330 wins single-core tests by 3.7-3.8%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 4363 versus AMD's 4207.

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6330 has a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the AMD EPYC 7601 has 170.6 GB/s. Both support DDR4 across eight channels.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6330 is built on a 10 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 7601 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. This process advantage contributes to Intel's higher performance per core.

Q: Which processor has higher power consumption?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6330 has a TDP of 205 W, while the AMD EPYC 7601 has a TDP of 180 W. The AMD part delivers its 32 cores with a 25 W lower thermal envelope.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon Gold 6330 | AMD EPYC 7601 |

|:---------------|:---------------------|:---------------|

| Cores | 28 | 32 |

| Threads | 56 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2000.00 MHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 205 W | 180 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4189 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Ice Lake | Zen (Naples) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | N/A | 4,800 million |

| Die Size | N/A | 213 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) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 170.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 64 Lanes | Gen 3 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2021-04-05 | 2017-06-28 |

The Intel Xeon Gold 6330 wins the performance comparison decisively, but the AMD EPYC 7601 offers more cores, lower power draw, and larger L3 cache. The choice between them hinges on whether the workload favors Intel's per-core efficiency and modern platform features or AMD's higher core count and lower operational cost.