AMD EPYC 7601 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a clear and consistent picture across all six Cinebench tests: the AMD EPYC 7601 wins every single head-to-head matchup against the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M. The margin of victory is remarkably uniform, with the AMD part leading by exactly 5.9% in each discipline, whether the workload is single-core or multi-core, and regardless of the Cinebench version used.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7601 scores 3003 against the Xeon's 2826. The single-core R15 result shows the same relative gap: 423 versus 398. Moving to Cinebench R20, the AMD chip posts 12516 in multi-core and 1766 in single-core, while the Intel part records 11776 and 1662 respectively. The most recent Cinebench R23 results continue the pattern, with the EPYC reaching 29800 in multi-core and 4207 in single-core, compared to the Xeon's 28040 and 3958.

The consistency of the 5.9% delta across all six tests is notable. It suggests that the performance advantage of the EPYC 7601 is not workload-specific or scaling-dependent, but rather a fundamental throughput advantage that persists from lightly threaded single-core tasks to fully saturated multi-core rendering. This is not a case where one chip wins heavily in one test and loses in another; the AMD processor simply maintains a steady, modest edge everywhere.

When placed in the broader context of the database, both processors sit in similar territory. The Xeon Platinum 8180M holds a 64th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the EPYC 7601 sits marginally higher at the 65th percentile. Their average benchmark scores reflect this proximity: the Xeon averages 8110, while the EPYC averages 8619. Interestingly, the Xeon's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i3-8100 at 8123 (a 0.2% difference), the AMD EPYC 7302 at 8139 (0.4%), and the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y at 8147 (0.5%). The EPYC 7601's nearest neighbors are mobile processors, including the Intel Core i7-10510U at 8580 and the Intel Core i5-8265U at 8568, all within 0.6%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies, and the architectural distinctions explain much of the benchmark behavior. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M is built on the Skylake-SP architecture, fabricated by Intel on a 14 nm process. It packs 28 cores with 56 threads, running at a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boosting up to 3.80 GHz. The thermal design power is rated at 205 W. The chip uses Intel Socket 3647 and contains 8,000 million transistors.

The AMD EPYC 7601 belongs to the EPYC 7001 series, using the Zen architecture with the Naples codename. It is also built on a 14 nm process, but fabricated by GlobalFoundries rather than Intel. The die size is recorded at 213 mm², and the transistor count is 4,800 million, substantially lower than the Intel part. The EPYC offers more cores: 32 cores and 64 threads, though at lower clocks: 2.20 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. Its TDP is rated lower at 180 W.

Cache configurations differ markedly between the two. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared L3 pool of 38.5 MB. The EPYC offers a larger L1 at 96 KB per core, but a smaller L2 at 512 KB per core, while its shared L3 cache is substantially larger at 64 MB. This larger L3 on the AMD side may contribute to its consistent performance edge, particularly in workloads that benefit from larger working sets residing on-chip.

Memory and I/O capabilities also diverge. Both support DDR4 memory and ECC, but the EPYC 7601 features an eight-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, while the Xeon's memory bus width and bandwidth are not specified in the database. The EPYC also lists PCIe Gen 3 support, whereas the Xeon's PCIe details are absent from the record. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, offering overclocking headroom on supported platforms, while the Xeon's multiplier is locked.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M has 28 cores and 56 threads. The AMD part offers four more cores and eight more threads.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M runs at a 2.50 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.80 GHz. The AMD EPYC 7601 has a lower 2.20 GHz base clock and a lower 3.20 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 averages 8619 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M averages 8110. This places the EPYC at the 65th percentile of all CPUs and the Xeon at the 64th percentile.

Q: Did the Intel part win any benchmark test?

A: No. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core), the AMD EPYC 7601 won every matchup. The Xeon recorded zero wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: What is the consistent performance gap between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 leads by exactly 5.9% in every single benchmark test. The delta is identical across all six tests, indicating a uniform performance advantage rather than test-specific behavior.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M has 38.5 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 is nearly double the size of the Xeon's.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the AMD EPYC 7601 for raw performance. It wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, maintains a higher average score (8619 versus 8110), and sits at a higher percentile ranking (65th versus 64th). The 5.9% advantage is consistent across single-core and multi-core workloads, suggesting that the EPYC's architectural choices, including its larger L3 cache and higher core count, translate into real-world gains regardless of thread utilization.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M does hold advantages in clock speed, with a 2.50 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost compared to the EPYC's 2.20 GHz and 3.20 GHz. It also has a lower transistor count on paper (8,000 million versus 4,800 million), though this is a manufacturing detail rather than a performance metric. The Xeon's higher TDP of 205 W versus 180 W for the EPYC indicates it draws more power while delivering less performance in these tests.

For workloads that are purely benchmark-driven, the AMD EPYC 7601 is the clear choice. Its consistent wins, higher core count, and larger cache make it the stronger processor in the recorded data. The Intel part's higher clocks do not compensate for its deficit in cores and cache, at least not within the Cinebench suite.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M | AMD EPYC 7601 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 28 | 32 |

| Threads | 56 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 205 W | 180 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 3647 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Zen |

| Codename | Skylake-SP | Naples |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 4,800 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 213 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 38.5 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Not recorded | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 170.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Not recorded | Gen 3 |

| Multiplier | Locked | Unlocked |

| Production Status | Not recorded | Active |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7601 wins in every performance category measured. In multi-core workloads, it outperforms the Xeon by 5.9% across all three Cinebench versions, with scores of 3003, 12516, and 29800 versus 2826, 11776, and 28040. This makes it the superior choice for heavily threaded applications such as rendering, scientific computing, and server virtualization, where the additional four cores and the larger 64 MB L3 cache can be fully utilized.

The EPYC also wins in single-core performance, again by the same 5.9% margin, with scores of 423, 1766, and 4207 versus the Xeon's 398, 1662, and 3958. This is notable because the Xeon has higher clock speeds (3.80 GHz boost versus 3.20 GHz), yet the EPYC still manages to come out ahead. The architectural efficiency of the Zen design, combined with the larger L1 cache per core, appears to offset the clock disadvantage.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head data. Its advantages are limited to specifications rather than measured performance: it has higher base and boost clocks, a smaller process node claim with more transistors, and a larger L2 cache per core (1 MB versus 512 KB). These factors may matter in specific workloads not covered by the Cinebench suite, but the recorded benchmarks show no scenario where the Xeon takes the lead.

For users choosing between these two processors based on the database measurements, the decision is straightforward: the AMD EPYC 7601 offers superior performance in every tested metric. The Xeon's higher clock speeds are a theoretical advantage, but they do not translate into benchmark wins. The EPYC's combination of more cores, more threads, and a substantially larger L3 cache gives it a consistent edge that is unlikely to disappear in broader testing. The Xeon remains a capable 28-core processor, but within this head-to-head comparison, it is second place across the board.