AMD EPYC 7601 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6346 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor delivers better single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6346 wins every single-core test in the database. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4,468 versus the AMD EPYC 7601's 4,207, a 6.2% advantage. The margin is consistent across R15 (450 vs 423, 6.4%) and R20 (1,876 vs 1,766, 6.2%).

Q: How does multi-core performance compare between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6346 leads in all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 31,650 versus the EPYC 7601's 29,800, a 6.2% difference. The same pattern holds in R20 (13,293 vs 12,516) and R15 (3,190 vs 3,003), each with a 6.2% delta.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, double the Intel Xeon Gold 6346's 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite this core disadvantage, the Intel part still posts higher benchmark scores across the board.

Q: Which processor uses a more advanced manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6346 is built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 7601 uses GlobalFoundries' 14 nm node. The Intel part also has a smaller die, though the database does not list its exact size; the EPYC 7601's die measures 213 mm² and contains 4,800 million transistors.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6346 offers 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, versus 170.6 GB/s for the AMD EPYC 7601. Both support DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus and include ECC capability.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6346 boosts to 3.60 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7601 reaches 3.20 GHz. The Intel part also has a higher base clock at 3.10 GHz versus 2.20 GHz for the AMD chip.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon Gold 6346 and AMD EPYC 7601 represent two distinct server platform designs separated by roughly four years of development. The Intel part belongs to the Ice Lake-SP generation, built on Intel's 10 nm process and fabricated at Intel's own foundries. The AMD EPYC 7601 comes from the EPYC 7001 series, codenamed Naples, using the original Zen architecture on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm node.

Core layout differs substantially. The Xeon Gold 6346 packs 16 cores with 32 threads, while the EPYC 7601 doubles that to 32 cores and 64 threads. This core count gap is partially offset by the Intel chip's higher clock speeds: 3.10 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost versus 2.20 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost for the AMD part. The Intel processor's smaller 10 nm process likely contributes to its ability to achieve higher frequencies despite fewer cores.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The Xeon Gold 6346 allocates 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a 36 MB shared L3 pool. The EPYC 7601 provides 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but a much larger 64 MB shared L3 cache. The AMD chip's larger L3 is typical of first-generation Zen designs that aimed to maximize per-core cache capacity.

Memory subsystems show another split. Both processors use eight-channel DDR4 with ECC support, but the Intel part achieves 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth versus 170.6 GB/s for the AMD chip. PCIe support also differs: the Xeon Gold 6346 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC 7601 uses PCIe Gen 3.

Other differences include socket compatibility. The Intel processor uses Socket 4189, while the AMD part uses Socket SP3. The EPYC 7601 has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Xeon Gold 6346 does not. The AMD chip's transistor count is listed at 4,800 million on a 213 mm² die; the Intel part's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon Gold 6346 across all six Cinebench tests. The margins are remarkably consistent, hovering near 6.2% in most cases, with the single-core R15 test showing a slightly larger gap.

Starting with single-core results, the Xeon Gold 6346 posts 450 points in Cinebench R15 versus 423 for the EPYC 7601, a 6.4% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Intel part scores 1,876 against 1,766, again 6.2% ahead. The R23 single-core test shows 4,468 versus 4,207, maintaining the same 6.2% margin. These consistent single-core advantages reflect the Intel chip's higher clock speeds and newer architecture.

Multi-core results follow the same pattern, though the EPYC 7601's 32 cores might be expected to counterbalance the Intel part's frequency advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon Gold 6346 scores 3,190 versus 3,003, a 6.2% win. The R20 multi-core test shows 13,293 against 12,516, also 6.2% ahead. Finally, R23 multi-core yields 31,650 for the Intel chip versus 29,800 for the AMD chip, again a 6.2% delta.

The database's head-to-head comparison records six wins for the Intel Xeon Gold 6346 and zero for the AMD EPYC 7601. This outcome is notable given that the EPYC 7601 has twice the core count. The Intel part's architectural advantages, including the 10 nm process, higher clocks, and greater memory bandwidth, appear to overcome the core deficit in these particular workloads.

It is notably these are all Cinebench rendering tests, which respond to both core count and per-core efficiency. The data suggests the Xeon Gold 6346's per-core performance is substantially better, enough to offset the EPYC 7601's raw core advantage. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the Intel chip averages 9,155 across all recorded tests, while the AMD chip averages 8,619.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. Core count: the Intel Xeon Gold 6346 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads. Clock speeds: the Intel part runs at 3.10 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, versus 2.20 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost for the AMD chip.

Thermal design power differs, with the Intel processor rated at 205 W and the AMD processor at 180 W. The Xeon Gold 6346 uses Intel Socket 4189, while the EPYC 7601 uses AMD Socket SP3. Manufacturing process: Intel's 10 nm node versus GlobalFoundries' 14 nm node for the AMD part.

Cache structures vary: the Intel chip has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core with 36 MB shared L3; the AMD chip has 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core with 64 MB shared L3. Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 204.8 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s. PCIe support: the Intel part uses Gen 4 with 64 CPU lanes, while the AMD part uses Gen 3.

The EPYC 7601 has an unlocked multiplier; the Xeon Gold 6346 does not. Release dates differ by nearly four years: the Intel chip launched on April 5, 2021, while the AMD chip launched on June 28, 2017. The AMD part has a listed transistor count of 4,800 million and a die size of 213 mm²; the Intel part has no such data recorded. Part numbers are also distinct: SRKHNCD8068904570201 for Intel, PS7601BDVIHAF for AMD.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Gold 6346 wins every recorded benchmark in this comparison. Its advantages are most pronounced in single-core workloads, where the 6.4% R15 margin and consistent 6.2% leads across R20 and R23 reflect the combination of higher base and boost clocks with the newer Ice Lake architecture. Multi-core results also favor Intel, with the same 6.2% edge in all three Cinebench versions.

The AMD EPYC 7601 holds no benchmark wins in the database. However, the specification sheet reveals areas where it could be preferable in specific deployments. Its 32 cores and 64 threads provide double the parallelism of the Intel part, which may matter in workloads that scale with core count beyond what the Cinebench suite captures. The larger 64 MB L3 cache could benefit data-intensive workloads that fit within that pool. The lower 180 W TDP, despite more cores, may also be advantageous in power-constrained environments.

The EPYC 7601's unlocked multiplier and Socket SP3 platform could be relevant for systems where overclocking or platform-specific features are a priority. Its older release date means it has been on the market longer, which may translate to broader ecosystem maturity. The Intel Xeon Gold 6346, by contrast, offers newer PCIe Gen 4 connectivity, higher memory bandwidth, and a more advanced 10 nm process.

For workloads that prioritize raw Cinebench scores, the Intel part is the clear choice. For scenarios that require maximum core counts, larger L3 cache, or lower TDP per core, the AMD EPYC 7601 may still have a role. The benchmark data, however, leaves no ambiguity about which processor performs better in the tested rendering tasks: the Intel Xeon Gold 6346 wins all six head-to-head comparisons with margins between 6.2% and 6.4%.