AMD EPYC 9224 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6312U Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: Both the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U and the AMD EPYC 9224 have identical core and thread counts: 24 cores and 48 threads each. The difference between them is not in the number of compute units, but in how each architecture extracts performance from those units.

Q: Which processor wins in the recorded Cinebench benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 wins all six recorded Cinebench tests. The margin is consistent, with the AMD part leading by 7.4% in five of the six tests and by 7.3% in the Cinebench R15 single-core test.

Q: What are the base and boost clock differences?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The Intel Xeon Gold 6312U has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The AMD part holds a 0.10 GHz advantage in both metrics.

Q: How do the memory systems differ?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6312U supports DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD EPYC 9224 supports DDR5 across a twelve-channel bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s. The AMD platform offers more than double the memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6312U is built on Intel's 10 nm process. The AMD EPYC 9224 is built on TSMC's 5 nm process. The AMD part also uses a chiplet design with four 72 mm² dies and 26,280 million transistors.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 9224 have a launch MSRP?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 9224 has a launch MSRP of $1825. The Intel Xeon Gold 6312U has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Gold 6312U uses the Ice Lake-SP architecture, a monolithic design built on Intel's 10 nm process. The AMD EPYC 9224 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Genoa codename, built on TSMC's 5 nm process with a chiplet layout. The database records the AMD die as four separate 72 mm² chiplets containing 26,280 million transistors in total.

Cache hierarchies reveal a significant divergence. Both chips allocate 64 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache, however, differs substantially: the Intel part has 36 MB shared, while the AMD part has 64 MB shared. That 28 MB difference in last-level cache can influence workloads with large working sets that benefit from more on-die data.

Memory architecture is another major split. The Intel Xeon Gold 6312U uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus, reaching 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD EPYC 9224 uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus, reaching 460.8 GB/s. The AMD platform also provides PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part provides PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server/workstation parts.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD EPYC 9224 starts at 2.50 GHz base and boosts to 3.70 GHz. The Intel Xeon Gold 6312U starts at 2.40 GHz base and boosts to 3.60 GHz. The AMD part holds a 0.10 GHz advantage at both ends, which contributes to its single-thread performance lead. The TDP reflects the higher clocks and more capable memory controller: the AMD part draws 200 W versus 185 W for the Intel part.

The release dates place these chips in different generations. The Intel Xeon Gold 6312U launched on 2021-04-05, while the AMD EPYC 9224 launched on 2022-11-09. Both remain active in production status. The AMD part belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, while the Intel part is a Xeon Gold from the Ice Lake-SP generation.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 9224 wins every recorded test, and the margins are consistent. In multi-core workloads, the AMD part leads by 7.4% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. In single-core tests, the lead is 7.3% in R15 and 7.4% in R20 and R23. The average benchmark score tells the same story: the AMD EPYC 9224 averages 11118, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U averages 10291, a difference of 827 points.

Who should pick the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U? The data suggests a narrow case. It has a lower TDP at 185 W versus 200 W, which could matter in power-constrained deployments. It also uses DDR4 memory, which may be relevant for organizations with existing DDR4 infrastructure. But the performance gap is real and consistent across all recorded tests.

Who should pick the AMD EPYC 9224? The data supports this choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput. It wins every benchmark, offers more memory bandwidth, more L3 cache, and a newer PCIe generation. The 7.4% multi-core advantage means that in a 24-core server, the AMD part delivers roughly the equivalent of nearly two extra cores of performance compared to the Intel part. The single-core advantage also matters for lightly threaded workloads.

The percentile ranking is identical at 66 for both chips, placing them in the same overall performance tier. But within that tier, the AMD part is consistently ahead. The verdict from the recorded data is clear: the AMD EPYC 9224 is the faster processor, and the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U is the more power-efficient option with a lower TDP.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

| Specification | Intel Xeon Gold 6312U | AMD EPYC 9224 |

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

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 185 W | 200 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4189 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Ice Lake | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Ice Lake-SP | Genoa |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 26,280 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 4x 72 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 64 Lanes | Gen 5, 128 Lanes |

| Release Date | 2021-04-05 | 2022-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $1825 |

| Part Number | Not recorded | 100-100000939 |

The two chips share identical core counts, thread counts, L1 cache per core, L2 cache per core, ECC support, market segment, production status, and unlocked multiplier status (both are locked).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 9224. Every recorded Cinebench test goes to the AMD part, and the margins are remarkably consistent.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD EPYC 9224 scores 3874 against 3586 for the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U. That is a 7.4% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows 546 versus 506, a 7.3% lead. The near-identical deltas across multi-core and single-core suggest the AMD advantage comes from both higher clocks and better per-clock efficiency.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. The multi-core test shows 16144 for the AMD part versus 14943 for the Intel part, again a 7.4% gap. The single-core test shows 2278 versus 2109, also 7.4%. The consistency of these margins across different Cinebench versions indicates a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Cinebench R23, the most recent test in the set, continues the trend. The AMD EPYC 9224 scores 38439 in multi-core, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U scores 35579. That is a 2880-point difference, or 7.4%. In single-core, the AMD part scores 5426 against 5022, a 404-point difference, again 7.4%.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The AMD EPYC 9224 averages 11118 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U averages 10291. The AMD part's nearest rival in the database is the AMD EPYC 7542 with an average score of 11152, a delta of -0.3%. The Intel part's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon W-3175X with an average score of 10369, a delta of -0.8%. Both chips sit at the 66th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9224 wins in every recorded benchmark category. That includes all three Cinebench versions, in both multi-core and single-core modes. The database records 6 wins for the AMD part and 0 wins for the Intel part.

For multi-threaded workloads, the AMD EPYC 9224 is the clear choice. The 7.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core translates to a meaningful advantage in rendering, simulation, and other parallel compute tasks. The larger 64 MB L3 cache and the 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth likely contribute to this lead, especially for workloads that stream data through the memory subsystem.

For single-threaded workloads, the AMD EPYC 9224 also wins. The 7.4% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core comes from a combination of the 0.10 GHz clock advantage and the architectural efficiency of Zen 4 on a 5 nm process. Applications that depend on single-thread performance, such as certain database operations or legacy software, will see a consistent improvement on the AMD platform.

The Intel Xeon Gold 6312U has one recorded advantage: TDP. At 185 W, it draws 15 W less than the AMD EPYC 9224 at 200 W. In a dense server environment with many sockets, that difference could reduce cooling requirements or allow more compute per power envelope. The Intel part also uses DDR4 memory, which may be a practical consideration for organizations with existing DDR4 memory modules, though the database does not record any performance benefit from this.

The data does not show any benchmark where the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U outperforms the AMD EPYC 9224. The choice between them comes down to whether the 7.4% performance deficit is acceptable in exchange for the 15 W lower TDP and DDR4 compatibility. For pure performance, the AMD EPYC 9224 is the answer. For power-sensitive deployments, the Intel Xeon Gold 6312U has a defensible position, but the recorded benchmarks offer no performance scenario where it comes out ahead.