AMD EPYC 7601 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database shows a clear, consistent outcome in this comparison: the AMD EPYC 7601 wins every single one of the six recorded head-to-head tests against the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268. The margins are narrow but uniform, with the AMD part holding a 3.6% to 3.7% lead across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core workloads. For buyers choosing between these two server processors strictly on measured performance, the EPYC 7601 is the one that comes out ahead in every recorded scenario.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268, however, is not far behind. Its multi-core scores trail by roughly 3.7% in R15, R20, and R23, and its single-core deficits are nearly identical. The data indicates that workloads which are sensitive to core count will favor AMD, as the EPYC 7601 packs 32 cores and 64 threads against Intel's 24 cores and 48 threads. That extra core count is the likely driver of the consistent multi-core advantage.

For single-threaded tasks, the story is more nuanced. The Intel part has a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz and a higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz, yet it still loses the single-core Cinebench tests by 3.6% to 3.7%. This suggests that the EPYC 7601's Zen architecture extracts more performance per clock in these specific rendering workloads, despite the raw clock disadvantage.

Who should pick which? The data says the AMD EPYC 7601 is the stronger choice for users running Cinebench-style rendering or multi-threaded compute workloads, given its six-for-six sweep. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 remains a viable option for environments where its particular platform traits, such as Intel Socket 3647 infrastructure, are already in place, but the recorded benchmarks do not show a single test where it outperforms the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The AMD EPYC 7601 belongs to the EPYC 7001 series, built on the Zen architecture with the codename Naples. It is manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process node, with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 is a Cascade Lake-SP part, using the Cascade Lake architecture, also on a 14 nm node but fabricated by Intel, with 8,000 million transistors.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8268 has 24 cores and 48 threads. This is an eight-core, sixteen-thread gap in AMD's favor, which helps explain the multi-core benchmark results.

Cache layouts also diverge. The AMD chip carries 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 64 MB L3 cache. The Intel chip has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a much smaller shared L3 of 35.75 MB. The EPYC 7601's L3 is nearly double that of the Xeon, which can benefit workloads that repeatedly access large working sets.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The Xeon Platinum 8268 starts at 2.90 GHz base and boosts to 3.90 GHz, while the EPYC 7601 is rated at 2.20 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, AMD wins every benchmark, suggesting that IPC, cache capacity, or core count more than compensates for the frequency deficit.

Memory support is similar in that both support DDR4 with ECC memory enabled. The EPYC 7601 uses an eight-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The database does not list a memory bus width or bandwidth figure for the Intel part, so a direct memory bandwidth comparison is not possible from the recorded data. The AMD chip also uses PCIe Gen 3, while the Intel part's PCIe generation is not recorded.

Sockets differ: the EPYC 7601 fits AMD Socket SP3, and the Xeon Platinum 8268 uses Intel Socket 3647. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part does not. The EPYC 7601 was released on 2017-06-28, while the Xeon Platinum 8268 came later, on 2018-12-10.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark table shows a clean sweep, so the wins are not distributed between the two. The AMD EPYC 7601 wins all six recorded tests, which means every Cinebench workload type, both multi-core and single-core, across three different Cinebench versions, falls to AMD.

Multi-core workloads favor the EPYC 7601 by 3.7% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The 32-core, 64-thread configuration gives it a structural advantage in heavily threaded rendering tasks. For users running CPU-based rendering, simulation, or other parallel compute, the data points to AMD.

Single-core workloads also favor the EPYC 7601, with margins of 3.7% in R15, 3.6% in R20, and 3.7% in R23. This is notable because the Intel part has a 0.70 GHz higher boost clock. The AMD chip's per-core efficiency in these tests overcomes the clock gap. Users who need strong single-thread performance in a server context would still see the AMD part ahead according to the recorded scores.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 does not have a single recorded win in this dataset. There is no benchmark category where it takes the lead. Its advantages in the database are limited to clock speed, transistor count, and L2 cache per core, but those do not translate into any Cinebench victory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the database?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 wins all six head-to-head tests, covering Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core modes. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 has zero wins.

Q: What is the typical performance margin between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 leads by 3.7% in five of the six tests, and by 3.6% in Cinebench R20 single-core. The margins are consistent across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

Q: How do core counts compare?

A: The EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Xeon Platinum 8268 has 24 cores and 48 threads. That is a difference of eight cores and sixteen threads in AMD's favor.

Q: Does the higher clock speed of the Intel part help it win?

A: No. The Xeon Platinum 8268 has a 2.90 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost, while the EPYC 7601 has a 2.20 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. Despite the clock advantage, the Intel part loses every recorded benchmark.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 7601 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon Platinum 8268 has 35.75 MB of shared L3, which is roughly 44% smaller. The AMD part also has 96 KB of L1 per core versus Intel's 64 KB per core, while Intel has 1 MB of L2 per core versus AMD's 512 KB per core.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7601 and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 have ECC memory support recorded as true. Both also support DDR4 memory, and the EPYC 7601 uses an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel memory bus details are not recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is remarkable for its uniformity. Every test shows the AMD EPYC 7601 ahead, and the margins cluster tightly around 3.7%.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7601 scores 3003 against the Xeon Platinum 8268's 2897, a delta of 3.7%. This is the largest absolute gap in points, a difference of 106 points. The single-core R15 test has the same percentage delta: 423 versus 408, a 15-point lead.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 12516 for AMD and 12074 for Intel, again a 3.7% margin, with a 442-point difference. The single-core R20 test narrows slightly to 3.6%, with scores of 1766 and 1704, a 62-point gap.

Cinebench R23 multi-core has the EPYC 7601 at 29800 and the Xeon at 28749, a 3.7% lead and a 1051-point difference. The single-core R23 test scores 4207 versus 4058, a 149-point gap and another 3.7% margin.

The consistency of these deltas is striking. Across different Cinebench versions, which have different scoring scales and workload characteristics, the relative performance remains nearly identical. This suggests a stable performance relationship between the two chips rather than a workload-specific quirk. The EPYC 7601's wins are not isolated to one test; they appear across the entire benchmark suite.

The average benchmark score in the database also reflects this hierarchy. The EPYC 7601 has an average score of 8619, while the Xeon Platinum 8268 sits at 8315. The percentile rankings are close, with the AMD part at the 65th percentile among all CPUs and the Intel part at the 64th percentile. The nearest rivals for each chip are also informative: the EPYC 7601's closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-8565U at 8665, a 0.5% difference, while the Xeon Platinum 8268's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon Gold 5320T at 8316, a 0% delta.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. Core count is the most obvious: 32 cores and 64 threads for AMD, versus 24 cores and 48 threads for Intel. Clock speeds favor Intel, with a 2.90 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost against AMD's 2.20 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost.

Thermal design power differs as well. The EPYC 7601 has a TDP of 180 watts, while the Xeon Platinum 8268 is rated at 205 watts. The Intel part draws more power according to the recorded TDP, despite having fewer cores and threads. This is worth noting for server power planning, though the database does not include measured power consumption.

Cache configurations are split. AMD leads in L1 cache per core (96 KB versus 64 KB) and L3 cache (64 MB shared versus 35.75 MB shared). Intel leads in L2 cache per core (1 MB versus 512 KB). The total L3 figure is not listed as a separate field for either chip, but the shared L3 values are recorded.

Process technology is the same node size, 14 nm, but the foundries differ: GlobalFoundries for AMD and Intel for Intel. Transistor counts favor Intel at 8,000 million versus 4,800 million, and the die size is recorded only for AMD at 213 mm², with no die size listed for the Intel part.

Memory support is DDR4 for both, with ECC true for both. The AMD chip has an eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s bandwidth; the Intel chip has no memory bus width or bandwidth recorded. PCIe generation is Gen 3 for AMD, with no PCIe data for Intel.

Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 3647. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier; the Intel part is locked. The EPYC 7601 released on 2017-06-28, and the Xeon Platinum 8268 released on 2018-12-10. Both are in the server/workstation market segment, and neither has integrated graphics listed. The EPYC 7601's production status is active, while the Xeon Platinum 8268's production status is not recorded.