AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 vs Intel Xeon Gold 5318H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database presents a clear split between these two processors. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 dominates the majority of the recorded tests, winning 13 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H takes 4 wins. For users prioritizing raw single-thread performance, encryption throughput, and general compute density, the Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 is the superior choice. Conversely, the Xeon Gold 5318H demonstrates distinct advantages in specific server-oriented workloads such as data compression, extended instruction execution, physics simulations, and random string sorting.

The Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 achieves a higher average benchmark score of 47,527 compared to the Xeon's 48,698, though both sit at the 90th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Xeon's higher average is driven by its exceptional showing in data compression (470,916 points), which skews the aggregate. In practical terms, the AMD part delivers a roughly 15.2% advantage across all Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core variants, making it the stronger choice for rendering, general productivity, and any workload that scales with per-core efficiency. The Xeon's wins are narrower in scope but pronounced in specialty areas: it leads by 35.4% in random string sorting and 30.3% in physics, indicating a particular strength in structured data processing and simulation tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors embody fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318H is built on the Cooper Lake-SP architecture using a 14nm process node at Intel's foundry. It packs 18 cores with 36 threads, a base clock of 2.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 24.75 MB L3 cache. Memory support is DDR4 with a six-channel bus, providing a theoretical bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s. The chip connects via Intel Socket 4189 and offers PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes from the CPU.

In contrast, the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 comes from the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Vermeer, manufactured on a 7nm process at TSMC. It features 12 cores and 24 threads with a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Its cache layout differs significantly: 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a much larger 64 MB L3 cache. The memory controller runs dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The CPU uses AMD Socket AM4 and provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The AMD chip also carries a transistor count of 8,300 million across a dual-die design measuring 2x 74 mm², while the Intel part does not have transistor or die size data recorded.

These architectural differences explain the benchmark outcomes. The AMD part's smaller process node and higher clock speeds drive its single-thread dominance, while the Intel part's additional cores (18 vs. 12) and six-channel memory bandwidth contribute to its wins in memory-intensive and compression tasks. The TDP values also diverge sharply: the Xeon Gold 5318H is rated at 150W, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 operates at 65W, though the database does not include power consumption measurements for direct comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 establishes a consistent lead across all Cinebench iterations. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2,959 against the Xeon's 2,510, a 15.2% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows 417 versus 354, also a 15.1% gap. Moving to R20, the AMD part scores 12,333 multi-core versus 10,460, and 1,740 single-core versus 1,476, both at a 15.2% delta. R23 continues the pattern: 29,366 multi-core versus 24,905, and 4,145 single-core versus 3,516. The consistency of this 15.2% margin across every Cinebench test suggests a fundamental per-clock efficiency advantage in the Zen 3 architecture.

The Passmark suite reveals more nuanced results. The AMD processor wins decisively in data encryption with a score of 26,313 versus 10,743, a staggering 59.2% advantage. This is the largest single-test gap in the entire comparison. The AMD part also leads in find prime numbers (228 versus 141, a 38.2% delta), single-thread performance (3,499 versus 2,225, a 36.4% delta), integer math (129,768 versus 107,603, a 17.1% delta), floating-point math (70,291 versus 66,610, a 5.2% delta), and the Passmark multithread test (34,549 versus 29,301, a 15.2% delta).

The Intel Xeon Gold 5318H counters with its own set of wins. In data compression, it posts 470,916 against the AMD's 416,599, a 13% lead. The extended instructions test shows 33,730 versus 27,031, a 24.8% advantage. Physics simulation favors Intel at 2,309 versus 1,772, a 30.3% gap. Random string sorting shows the Xeon's largest win at 58,841 versus 43,447, a 35.4% margin. These results indicate that the Intel part excels at workloads involving large data movement and specialized instruction sets, likely benefiting from its six-channel memory architecture.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every measurable specification. Core count differs: 18 cores and 36 threads for Intel versus 12 cores and 24 threads for AMD. Clock speeds favor AMD with a base of 3.00 GHz and boost of 4.70 GHz against Intel's 2.50 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The TDP rating is substantially higher for the Intel chip at 150W versus 65W. Socket compatibility is entirely different, with Intel using Socket 4189 and AMD using AM4.

The cache configuration shows a trade-off: Intel offers 1 MB L2 per core and a 24.75 MB shared L3, while AMD provides 512 KB L2 per core but a significantly larger 64 MB L3. Memory channels favor Intel at six-channel with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth versus AMD's dual-channel at 51.2 GB/s. PCIe generation and lane count also differ, with Intel on Gen 3 with 48 lanes and AMD on Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The process node is a clear differentiator: Intel uses 14nm while AMD uses 7nm. The AMD processor has recorded transistor and die size data (8,300 million transistors, 2x 74 mm²), while the Intel part lacks this information. Both support DDR4 memory and ECC, and neither includes integrated graphics. The Intel part is marked for the Server/Workstation segment, while the AMD part targets Desktop, though both remain in active production. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318H released on April 5, 2021, while the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 launched on April 3, 2022.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 is consistently faster. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4,145 versus the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H's 3,516, a 15.2% advantage. The Passmark single-thread test shows an even larger gap: 3,499 versus 2,225, which is a 36.4% lead.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H have any advantages in the benchmark suite?

A: Yes, the Xeon wins 4 of the 17 head-to-head tests. Its strongest results are in random string sorting (35.4% ahead), physics simulation (30.3% ahead), extended instructions (24.8% ahead), and data compression (13% ahead).

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5318H has 18 cores and 36 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the AMD part wins the majority of multi-threaded benchmarks, including Cinebench R23 multi-core where it scores 29,366 versus 24,905.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5318H supports six-channel DDR4 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 uses dual-channel memory with 51.2 GB/s. This likely contributes to the Xeon's wins in data compression and random string sorting.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H boosts to 3.80 GHz. The AMD part also has a higher base clock at 3.00 GHz versus 2.50 GHz.

Q: Are both processors still in active production?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon Gold 5318H and the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 are listed with an active production status. The Intel part released on April 5, 2021, and the AMD part released on April 3, 2022.