AMD EPYC 7601 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a clear, consistent verdict: the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 wins every single recorded comparison against the AMD EPYC 7601. Across six Cinebench tests, spanning R15, R20, and R23, the Intel part claims victory in both multi-core and single-core workloads. The margin is remarkably uniform, with the Xeon Platinum 8180 leading by 9.1% or 9.2% in each test.

In multi-core performance, the Xeon Platinum 8180 scores 3277 in Cinebench R15, against 3003 for the EPYC 7601, a 9.1% advantage. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20, where the Intel chip records 13658 versus 12516, again 9.1% ahead. The largest absolute gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with the Xeon Platinum 8180 posting 32520 compared to the EPYC 7601's 29800. That represents the same 9.1% relative difference, but in absolute terms the Intel processor finishes more than 2700 points higher.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though the margins are fractionally larger. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon Platinum 8180 scores 462 against 423 for the EPYC 7601, a 9.2% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1928 versus 1766, again 9.2% ahead. Cinebench R23 single-core completes the sweep with 4591 against 4207, a 9.1% difference. The consistency of these deltas suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The aggregate benchmark score reinforces the picture. The Xeon Platinum 8180 carries an average benchmark score of 9406, while the EPYC 7601 sits at 8619. That is a substantial overall gap of roughly 9.1%, which aligns almost exactly with the head-to-head deltas. Both processors occupy the 65th percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating that while they compete at a similar tier, the Intel part holds the performance edge within that tier.

Context from the nearest rivals adds perspective. The Xeon Platinum 8180's nearest competitor in the database is the Intel Atom x7835RE, which averages 9430, a negligible 0.3% difference. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX trails by 0.6%, while the Core i7-7700HQ is 0.9% behind. Only the Ryzen Threadripper 3960X, at 9284, sits more than 1% lower, with a 1.3% deficit. For the EPYC 7601, the nearest rivals are all mobile-class Intel parts: the Core i7-10510U at 8580 (0.5% behind), the Core i5-8250U at 8577 (0.5% behind), the Core i5-8265U at 8568 (0.6% behind), and the Core i7-8565U at 8665, which is 0.5% ahead of the EPYC. The EPYC 7601's average score of 8619 places it in the company of low-power laptop chips, a notable observation for a server processor.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: choose the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 if raw benchmark performance is the priority. It wins all six head-to-head tests, with every victory landing between 9.1% and 9.2%. There is no workload category in the recorded measurements where the AMD EPYC 7601 pulls ahead. The Intel part also holds a higher average benchmark score, 9406 versus 8619, which translates to a roughly 9% aggregate advantage.

The AMD EPYC 7601 is not without merit, but its strengths lie outside the measured benchmarks. It offers more cores, 32 versus 28, and more threads, 64 versus 56. It also presents a lower TDP of 180 watts compared to 205 watts for the Intel chip, and it carries an unlocked multiplier, a feature the Xeon lacks. However, none of these attributes translate into a benchmark win in the database. The EPYC's higher core count does not overcome the Xeon's per-core efficiency, and its lower power draw comes with a performance cost.

For a buyer prioritizing benchmark scores, the Xeon Platinum 8180 is the straightforward recommendation. For a buyer prioritizing core count, power efficiency, or overclocking flexibility, the EPYC 7601 has arguments in its favor, but those arguments are not supported by the recorded benchmark results.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 wins in every measured category. Multi-core workloads favor it consistently, with 9.1% leads across R15, R20, and R23. Single-core workloads favor it even more slightly, with 9.2% leads in R15 and R20, and 9.1% in R23. The Xeon also wins the aggregate average score comparison, 9406 to 8619. If the decision rests on Cinebench performance, any of the three versions of the test, the Intel processor is the correct pick.

The AMD EPYC 7601 wins in areas the benchmarks do not capture. It provides 32 cores and 64 threads, four more cores and eight more threads than the Xeon. Its TDP is lower, 180 watts versus 205 watts, which could matter in dense server environments where thermal headroom is scarce. The EPYC also comes with an unlocked multiplier, allowing user-controlled frequency adjustments, whereas the Xeon is locked. Additionally, the EPYC features an eight-channel memory bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s; the database does not list a comparable memory bus or bandwidth figure for the Xeon, so no direct comparison is possible.

The production status also differs. The EPYC 7601 is listed as active, while the Xeon Platinum 8180 has no production status recorded. That distinction may influence availability, but it does not affect benchmark positioning.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 scores 32520 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD EPYC 7601 scores 29800, giving the Intel part a 9.1% advantage.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 leads in single-core tests across all three Cinebench versions. In R15 it scores 462 versus 423, in R20 it scores 1928 versus 1766, and in R23 it scores 4591 versus 4207.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7601 have more cores than the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180?

A: Yes. The EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8180 has 28 cores and 56 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 has an average benchmark score of 9406, and the AMD EPYC 7601 has an average benchmark score of 8619.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 has a TDP of 180 watts, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 has a TDP of 205 watts.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7601 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 does not.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 uses the Skylake-SP architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It integrates 8,000 million transistors. The AMD EPYC 7601 uses the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, also on a 14 nm process but manufactured by GlobalFoundries. It integrates 4,800 million transistors and has a die size of 213 mm²; the database does not list a die size for the Intel part.

Cache layouts differ notably. The Xeon Platinum 8180 allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 38.5 MB L3 cache. The EPYC 7601 provides 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a larger shared 64 MB L3 cache. The EPYC's larger L3 pool likely compensates for its smaller per-core L2 allocation, though the benchmark results show the Intel part still wins despite the smaller total cache.

Memory support is listed as DDR4 for both, and both support ECC memory. The EPYC 7601 specifies an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon Platinum 8180 has no memory bus or bandwidth figure recorded in the database, so a direct comparison is not possible from the available data. The EPYC also lists PCIe Gen 3 support; the Xeon has no PCIe specification recorded.

Both processors target the server and workstation market segment. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 3647, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. The release dates are close, with the EPYC 7601 arriving on June 28, 2017, and the Xeon Platinum 8180 on July 10, 2017.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads. Clock speeds also differ. The Xeon has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The EPYC has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz.

TDP separates the two, with the Xeon rated at 205 watts and the EPYC at 180 watts. The sockets are incompatible, Intel Socket 3647 for the Xeon and AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC. The multiplier status differs as well: the Xeon is locked, the EPYC is unlocked.

Cache specifications differ in every level. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 38.5 MB shared L3. The EPYC has 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. The EPYC also records an eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, fields that are not listed for the Xeon. The transistor counts differ, 8,000 million for the Xeon and 4,800 million for the EPYC, and the foundries differ, Intel for the Xeon and GlobalFoundries for the EPYC. The EPYC lists a die size of 213 mm², while the Xeon has none recorded. Finally, the EPYC is marked as active in production status, while the Xeon has no production status listed.