AMD EPYC 7702P vs Intel Xeon 6315P Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7702P and Intel Xeon 6315P represent two vastly different approaches to server processing, separated by nearly six years of architectural evolution. The EPYC 7702P is a 64-core Zen 2 behemoth built for massive parallel throughput, while the Xeon 6315P is a 4-core Raptor Lake part focused on high single-thread frequency and efficiency. The benchmark data shows a decisive, one-sided performance relationship, with the EPYC 7702P winning all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons by margins exceeding 416%. However, the Xeon 6315P counters with a substantially higher boost clock and a 2025 release date, making the choice between them a matter of workload type rather than raw capability alone.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702P features 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6315P has 4 cores and 4 threads. This represents a 16x difference in core count and a 32x difference in thread count.

Q: What is the performance gap in multi-core benchmarks?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7702P scores 52,308 versus the Xeon 6315P's 10,134, a delta of 416.2%. Similar margins appear in R20 multi-core (21,969 vs 4,256; 416.2%) and R15 multi-core (5,272 vs 1,021; 416.4%).

Q: Does the Xeon 6315P have any single-core advantage?

A: No. Despite a higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz versus 3.35 GHz for the EPYC, the Xeon 6315P scores lower in every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 7,384 versus 1,430 for the Xeon, a 416.4% advantage for AMD.

Q: What is the difference in process technology?

A: The EPYC 7702P is fabricated on a 7 nm process by TSMC, while the Xeon 6315P uses Intel's 10 nm process. The EPYC also has a smaller die size at 74 mm² compared to 163 mm² for the Xeon.

Q: How do the memory channels compare?

A: The EPYC 7702P supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Xeon 6315P supports dual-channel DDR4 and DDR5 memory, though its bandwidth figure is not provided in the data.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Xeon 6315P?

A: The Intel Xeon 6315P has a launch MSRP of $213. The EPYC 7702P has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectural foundations. The AMD EPYC 7702P uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and belongs to the EPYC 7002 series. It is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 3,800 million transistors packed into a 74 mm² die. This compact, dense design enables the massive core count of 64 cores and 128 threads, all running at a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. The EPYC's cache hierarchy is equally expansive: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 256 MB L3 cache. This large L3 pool is critical for the high-throughput workloads that the EPYC is designed to handle.

In contrast, the Intel Xeon 6315P is based on the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, and is part of the Xeon 6 generation. It uses Intel's 10 nm process and has a larger die size of 163 mm², though its transistor count is not listed. The core configuration is drastically different: just 4 cores and 4 threads, with no hyper-threading support. However, the Xeon compensates with much higher clock speeds: a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Its cache is smaller across the board: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. This configuration prioritizes low latency and high frequency over raw parallelism.

Memory and I/O also diverge sharply. The EPYC 7702P supports DDR4 memory across eight channels, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, and uses PCIe Gen 4. The Xeon 6315P supports both DDR4 and DDR5 across dual channels, with PCIe Gen 5 limited to 16 lanes from the CPU. Both processors support ECC memory, and neither has integrated graphics. The EPYC uses the AMD Socket SP3, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1700. The Xeon also has a much later release date of 2025-02-23, compared to the EPYC's 2019-08-06, reflecting the generational gap between the two designs.

The Verdict

The data tells a clear story for multi-threaded workloads: the AMD EPYC 7702P is in a completely different performance class. With 64 cores versus 4, it dominates every Cinebench multi-core test by margins between 416.2% and 416.4%. For database servers, virtualization hosts, or scientific computing tasks that scale across many threads, the EPYC's 128 threads and 256 MB L3 cache make it the only viable choice between these two. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 52,308 is more than five times the Xeon's 10,134, a gap that no clock speed advantage can bridge.

The Intel Xeon 6315P, however, is not without merit for specific use cases. Its boost clock of 4.70 GHz is substantially higher than the EPYC's 3.35 GHz, which can benefit lightly threaded applications that are sensitive to single-core latency. Yet the benchmark data shows that even in single-core tests, the EPYC wins decisively: 7,384 versus 1,430 in Cinebench R23 single-core, a 416.4% margin. This suggests that the EPYC's Zen 2 architecture, despite its age, delivers superior per-thread performance in this comparison, possibly due to the Xeon's very low core count limiting its effective throughput.

For new deployments, the Xeon 6315P's 2025 release date and dual DDR4/DDR5 support make it a more modern platform, and its 55 W TDP is far lower than the EPYC's 200 W. But the benchmark results are unambiguous: the EPYC 7702P wins all six head-to-head comparisons. The Xeon is only suitable for workloads with minimal thread requirements where its lower power draw and newer socket matter more than raw compute. Otherwise, the EPYC 7702P is the superior processor in every measured benchmark.

Specification Differences

The specifications of these two processors differ in nearly every measurable field. The EPYC 7702P has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Xeon 6315P has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz for AMD versus 2.80 GHz for Intel, and boost clocks are 3.35 GHz versus 4.70 GHz, respectively. TDP is another major divider: the EPYC draws 200 W, while the Xeon consumes just 55 W.

Process technology shows a 7 nm node from TSMC for the AMD part versus 10 nm from Intel for the Xeon. The EPYC has a die size of 74 mm², while the Xeon's is 163 mm². Cache configurations differ in both size and organization: the EPYC offers 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3; the Xeon has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 (eight-channel) for AMD versus DDR4 and DDR5 (dual-channel) for Intel. Memory bandwidth is 204.8 GB/s for the EPYC, with no figure listed for the Xeon. PCIe generation also differs: Gen 4 for AMD versus Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes for Intel.

Socket compatibility is entirely different: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 1700. The EPYC's architecture is Zen 2 with codename Rome, while the Xeon uses Raptor Lake with codename Raptor Lake-R. Release dates are 2019-08-06 for AMD and 2025-02-23 for Intel. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $213, while the EPYC has none listed. Both support ECC memory, both lack integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data presents a uniform result: the AMD EPYC 7702P wins all six comparisons, with a 6-0 record in the wins tally. Every delta is remarkably consistent, hovering around 416%.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 5,272 against the Xeon's 1,021, a delta of 416.4%. The single-core variant shows an almost identical margin: 744 versus 144, a 416.7% advantage for AMD. This consistency suggests that the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent, stemming from the fundamental differences in core count and architecture.

Cinebench R20 continues the pattern. Multi-core results show 21,969 for the EPYC versus 4,256 for the Xeon, a delta of 416.2%. Single-core results are 3,101 versus 600, a delta of 416.8%. These margins are slightly tighter than R15 but still represent a five-fold advantage for AMD in multi-core and a five-fold advantage in single-core.

The Cinebench R23 results are the most telling. Multi-core scores are 52,308 for the EPYC and 10,134 for the Xeon, a delta of 416.2%. Single-core scores are 7,384 versus 1,430, a delta of 416.4%. The R23 multi-core test is particularly demanding, and the EPYC's 256 MB L3 cache and 128 threads allow it to sustain high throughput, while the Xeon's 4 threads and 12 MB L3 cache are quickly saturated.

The Xeon 6315P does have additional PassMark benchmarks in its data, including data compression (118,313), data encryption (5,470), and integer math (27,046), but no comparable PassMark scores are listed for the EPYC 7702P. As such, these cannot be directly compared. The available Cinebench data, however, is sufficient to establish a clear hierarchy: the EPYC 7702P outperforms the Xeon 6315P by a factor of roughly five in both multi-core and single-core tests, with no measurable area where the Intel part takes the lead.