AMD EPYC 7601 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M Comparison

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M and AMD EPYC 7601 are both 14 nm server processors aimed at the same market segment, but the recorded benchmark data shows a consistent advantage for the Intel part across every Cinebench workload. The Xeon Platinum 8280M wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 7.4% to 7.6% depending on the test. The EPYC 7601 counters with a higher core count, a larger shared L3 cache, and a wider memory bus, yet the measured scores still favor Intel in every recorded run.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M takes the multicore Cinebench R15 test with a score of 3227 against the EPYC 7601's 3003, a 7.5% advantage. The single-core R15 result is similar: Intel scores 455 versus AMD's 423, a 7.6% lead. These margins hold steady across newer Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R20 multicore, Intel records 13446 against 12516, a 7.4% gap, and in single-core R20, Intel's 1897 beats AMD's 1766 by the same 7.4%. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23: Intel posts 32015 multicore versus 29800, and 4519 single-core versus 4207, both 7.4% advantages.

The consistency of the delta is notable. Every multicore test shows a 7.4% or 7.5% margin, and every single-core test shows 7.4% or 7.6%. This suggests the performance difference is structural rather than workload-specific. The EPYC 7601 has more cores (32 versus 28) and more threads (64 versus 56), yet it still trails in multicore throughput. That means the Xeon's per-core efficiency and higher clock speeds more than compensate for the core deficit.

Looking at the broader database context, the Xeon Platinum 8280M has an average benchmark score of 9260, placing it at the 65th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-10300H at 9243 (0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X at 9284 (0.3% ahead), the Intel Core i7-1165G7 at 9235 (0.3% behind), and the Intel Xeon Gold 5320 at 9234 (0.3% behind). The EPYC 7601, meanwhile, averages 8619, also at the 65th percentile, with nearest rivals being the Intel Core i7-10510U at 8580 (0.5% behind), the Intel Core i5-8250U at 8577 (0.5% behind), the Intel Core i7-8565U at 8665 (0.5% ahead), and the Intel Core i5-8265U at 8568 (0.6% behind). The gap in average score between the two processors is substantial, with the Xeon at 9260 and the EPYC at 8619, and it aligns with the head-to-head results.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different architectural lineages. The Xeon Platinum 8280M uses Intel's Cascade Lake-SP design, built on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It packs 8,000 million transistors. The EPYC 7601 uses AMD's Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors and a die size of 213 mm².

Core and cache configurations differ significantly. The Xeon has 28 cores and 56 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 38.5 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC has 32 cores and 64 threads, with 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a larger 64 MB of shared L3 cache. So the AMD part offers more cores, more threads, and more L3 cache, while the Intel part has larger per-core L2 and a higher clock ceiling.

Clock speeds favor Intel. The Xeon runs at a 2.70 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.00 GHz. The EPYC runs at 2.20 GHz base and boosts to 3.20 GHz. The Xeon's boost clock of 4.00 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.20 GHz gives Intel a clear advantage in single-core results, and it also helps in multicore workloads where the Xeon's 28 cores can sustain higher frequencies.

Memory support differs as well. Both support DDR4 and ECC memory, and both use PCIe Gen 3. The EPYC 7601 has an eight-channel memory bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The Xeon's memory bus width and bandwidth are not recorded in the database, so a direct comparison cannot be made from the data. The EPYC's eight-channel configuration is a notable architectural feature, but the benchmark results do not show it translating into a Cinebench win.

The Xeon is not multiplier unlocked, while the EPYC 7601 is. The EPYC also has an active production status, while the Xeon's production status is not recorded. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 3647, and the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M scores 32015 versus the AMD EPYC 7601's 29800, a 7.4% advantage for Intel.

Q: Does the EPYC 7601's higher core count help it in any benchmark?

A: No. Despite having 32 cores and 64 threads versus the Xeon's 28 cores and 56 threads, the EPYC 7601 loses all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons. The Xeon wins every test by at least 7.4%.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The Xeon leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R15, it scores 455 versus 423 (7.6% ahead). In R20, it scores 1897 versus 1766 (7.4% ahead). In R23, it scores 4519 versus 4207 (7.4% ahead).

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

A: The Xeon Platinum 8280M has an average benchmark score of 9260, while the EPYC 7601 averages 8619. Both sit at the 65th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M has 38.5 MB. The EPYC also has more L1 cache per core (96 KB versus 64 KB), but the Xeon has more L2 per core (1 MB versus 512 KB).

Q: Are both processors on the same process node?

A: Yes, both are built on a 14 nm process. The Xeon is fabricated by Intel, and the EPYC is fabricated by GlobalFoundries.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several specification fields. The Xeon Platinum 8280M has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads. Base clocks are 2.70 GHz for Intel and 2.20 GHz for AMD. Boost clocks are 4.00 GHz for Intel and 3.20 GHz for AMD. TDP is 205 W for the Xeon and 180 W for the EPYC.

Sockets differ: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 3647, and the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. The Xeon is built on Cascade Lake-SP architecture, while the EPYC uses Zen (Naples). Transistor counts are 8,000 million for Intel and 4,800 million for AMD. The EPYC has a recorded die size of 213 mm²; the Xeon's die size is not recorded.

Cache layouts differ: 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. Memory support is DDR4 for both, with ECC support on both. The EPYC has an eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth; the Xeon's memory bus and bandwidth are not recorded. Both use PCIe Gen 3.

The EPYC 7601 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon does not. The EPYC's production status is Active; the Xeon's is not recorded. Release dates differ: the Xeon launched on 2018-12-10, and the EPYC launched on 2017-06-28. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, with margins between 7.4% and 7.6%. It also has a higher average benchmark score (9260 versus 8619) and a higher boost clock (4.00 GHz versus 3.20 GHz). The EPYC 7601 offers more cores, more threads, a larger L3 cache, and an eight-channel memory bus, but none of those advantages translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

For workloads that rely on Cinebench-style rendering performance, the Xeon Platinum 8280M is the stronger choice. The EPYC 7601 remains a capable server processor, but the recorded measurements show it trailing the Xeon in every test. The Xeon's higher clock speeds and per-core efficiency appear to outweigh the EPYC's core-count advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280M wins in every recorded benchmark category. It leads in Cinebench R15 multicore (3227 versus 3003), R15 single-core (455 versus 423), R20 multicore (13446 versus 12516), R20 single-core (1897 versus 1766), R23 multicore (32015 versus 29800), and R23 single-core (4519 versus 4207). The margins are consistent, ranging from 7.4% to 7.6%.

The AMD EPYC 7601 does not win any recorded benchmark, but it has structural advantages that may matter in other contexts. It has 32 cores versus 28, 64 threads versus 56, a 64 MB shared L3 cache versus 38.5 MB, and an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth. It also has a lower TDP (180 W versus 205 W) and an unlocked multiplier. These features are not reflected in the Cinebench results, but they could be relevant for memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads or overclocking scenarios, based on the recorded specifications.

In terms of the database's nearest-rival comparisons, the Xeon Platinum 8280M sits close to the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X, which is 0.3% ahead in average score. The EPYC 7601 sits near several Intel mobile processors, including the Core i7-8565U, which is 0.5% ahead. This context reinforces the performance gap between the two server chips.