Intel Xeon Gold 5320H vs Intel Xeon Phi 7290 Comparison

The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 and Intel Xeon Gold 5320H represent two radically different approaches to server processing, separated by nearly five years of design philosophy. The data shows a clear split: the Xeon Phi 7290, a 72-core Knights Landing behemoth from 2016, still wins in specific data-heavy workloads, while the Xeon Gold 5320H, a 20-core Cooper Lake-SP part from 2021, dominates in every general-purpose benchmark. Both CPUs sit at the 91st percentile among all tested processors, yet their average benchmark scores differ by only 2.0%, with the Phi scoring 53,469 against the Gold’s 52,431. This narrow overall margin masks a chasm in per-core performance, clock speeds, and architectural efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon Phi 7290 has 72 cores and 288 threads, while the Intel Xeon Gold 5320H has 20 cores and 40 threads. That is a 3.6x core advantage and a 7.2x thread advantage for the Phi.

Q: Why does the Xeon Gold 5320H win most benchmarks despite having fewer cores?

A: The Gold 5320H operates at a 2.40 GHz base clock and 4.20 GHz boost clock, versus the Phi’s 1.50 GHz base and 1.70 GHz boost. The Gold’s much higher clock speeds, combined with a newer architecture, allow it to win 12 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons.

Q: In which workloads does the Xeon Phi 7290 outperform the Xeon Gold 5320H?

A: The Phi wins in five tests: data compression (564,535 vs 500,828, a 12.7% lead), data encryption (12,505 vs 11,462, a 9.1% lead), extended instructions (41,517 vs 36,564, a 13.5% lead), integer math (126,922 vs 119,955, a 5.8% lead), and random string sorting (68,593 vs 62,730, a 9.3% lead).

Q: How do the single-threaded performances compare?

A: The Xeon Gold 5320H is dramatically faster in single-threaded tests. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 2,428 versus the Phi’s 485, an 80.0% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Gold scores 3,806 versus 2,140, a 43.8% lead.

Q: What are the memory configurations of the two CPUs?

A: Both support DDR4 memory and have ECC enabled. The Xeon Gold 5320H features a six-channel memory bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon Phi 7290’s memory bus and bandwidth are not specified in the data.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: The Xeon Gold 5320H has an active production status. The Xeon Phi 7290’s production status is not listed in the data, and its release date of 2016-06-19 predates the Gold’s 2021-04-05 launch.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 14 nm process node and Intel foundry, but diverge almost everywhere else. The Xeon Phi 7290 uses the Knights Landing architecture with a codename of the same name, while the Xeon Gold 5320H is built on the Cooper Lake architecture with the codename Cooper Lake-SP. The generation labels reflect this: the Phi is listed as "Xeon Phi (Knights Landing)" and the Gold as "Xeon Gold (Cooper Lake-SP)."

The core configurations could not be more different. The Phi packs 72 cores with 4 threads per core, yielding 288 threads, whereas the Gold uses 20 cores with 2 threads per core for 40 threads. This is a fundamental design split: the Phi prioritizes massive parallelism for throughput-oriented workloads, while the Gold focuses on fewer, faster cores with higher per-thread efficiency.

Cache hierarchies also differ significantly. The Phi provides 32 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with no L3 cache listed. The Gold offers larger per-core caches at 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2, plus a shared 27.5 MB L3 cache. The absence of an L3 on the Phi suggests a reliance on its high core count and memory parallelism rather than a shared cache pool. The Gold’s L3 cache provides a shared resource that can benefit latency-sensitive and data-reuse-heavy workloads.

The Gold 5320H also brings explicit I/O and memory capabilities that are unspecified for the Phi. The Gold supports PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes (CPU only) and has a defined six-channel memory bus delivering 128.0 GB/s. The Phi’s data sheet lists only DDR4 memory support and ECC, leaving its memory bus and PCIe configuration unstated. The transistor count also differs: the Phi integrates 8,000 million transistors, while the Gold’s transistor count is not provided.

Clock speeds are a major architectural divider. The Gold’s 2.40 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost clocks dwarf the Phi’s 1.50 GHz base and 1.70 GHz boost. Power consumption reflects this trade-off, with the Phi rated at 245 W TDP versus the Gold’s 150 W TDP. The higher TDP on the Phi is notable given its lower clocks, indicating the power cost of driving 72 cores. The sockets are also incompatible: the Phi uses Intel Socket 3647, while the Gold uses Intel Socket 4189.

The Verdict

The benchmark data draws a clear line between these two CPUs. For general-purpose server workloads — rendering, physics simulation, floating-point math, and single-threaded tasks — the Intel Xeon Gold 5320H is the definitive choice. It wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head tests, often by wide margins. Its 43.8% lead across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core tests shows that its 20 cores, running at much higher clocks, deliver far more usable throughput than the Phi’s 72 cores. In PassMark multithread, the Gold scores 31,718 versus 17,839, a 43.8% advantage, proving that raw core count does not guarantee superior multithreaded performance. The Gold also leads in floating-point math (73,873 vs 47,417, a 35.8% margin), physics (2,395 vs 2,257), and prime number finding (156 vs 114), making it the better all-rounder.

The Xeon Phi 7290 is a niche specialist. Its wins are concentrated in data manipulation and encryption tasks, where its 288 threads can be fully utilized. It leads by 12.7% in data compression, 9.1% in data encryption, 13.5% in extended instructions, 5.8% in integer math, and 9.3% in random string sorting. These are workloads that scale with thread count and memory-level parallelism, areas where the Phi’s massive core count can overcome its low clock speeds. However, its 80.0% deficit in single-threaded performance and its 43.8% deficits in every Cinebench test make it unsuitable for latency-sensitive or lightly threaded applications.

The choice is therefore workload-dependent. A buyer running database-style operations, encryption services, or integer-heavy data processing might extract value from the Phi’s parallel throughput. Anyone running general compute, rendering, or mixed server tasks should select the Gold 5320H, which also offers the advantages of an active production status, a lower 150 W TDP, and a clearly defined memory subsystem with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Gold’s 27.5 MB shared L3 cache and per-core L1/L2 that are double the Phi’s sizes further cement its status as the more modern and capable processor for standard server duties.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two processors differ, based on the provided data.

| Specification | Intel Xeon Phi 7290 | Intel Xeon Gold 5320H |

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

| Cores | 72 | 20 |

| Threads | 288 | 40 |

| Base Clock | 1.50 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 1.70 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| TDP | 245 W | 150 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 3647 | Intel Socket 4189 |

| Architecture | Knights Landing | Cooper Lake |

| Codename | Knights Landing | Cooper Lake-SP |

| Generation | Xeon Phi (Knights Landing) | Xeon Gold (Cooper Lake-SP) |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | Not specified |

| L1 Cache | 32 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | Not specified | 27.5 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Not specified | Six-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 128.0 GB/s |

| PCIe | Not specified | Gen 3, 48 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Production Status | Not specified | Active |

| Release Date | 2016-06-19 | 2021-04-05 |

| Part Number | SR2WY | SRJY1CD8070604481501 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite delivers a unanimous verdict for the Xeon Gold 5320H. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Gold scores 2,717 against the Phi’s 1,528, a 43.8% lead. The single-core R15 result is similar: 383 vs 215, also a 43.8% margin. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern at 11,323 vs 6,368, and R20 single-core at 1,598 vs 898, both with the identical 43.8% delta. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the Gold at 26,960 versus 15,163, and R23 single-core at 3,806 versus 2,140, again with a 43.8% gap. These consistent deltas indicate that the Gold’s architectural and clock advantages apply uniformly across all Cinebench versions, regardless of the workload scaling.

PassMark results are more split. The Phi’s best win comes in data compression, scoring 564,535 against the Gold’s 500,828, a 12.7% advantage. This is followed by extended instructions, where the Phi leads 41,517 to 36,564, a 13.5% margin. Data encryption also favors the Phi at 12,505 vs 11,462, a 9.1% lead. Random string sorting goes to the Phi at 68,593 vs 62,730, a 9.3% advantage. Integer math is the closest Phi win, at 126,922 vs 119,955, a 5.8% margin. These five wins highlight the Phi’s strength in parallel, data-intensive operations, but they are offset by the Gold’s victories in the remaining tests.

The Gold’s PassMark wins are decisive. The most striking is single-thread performance, where the Gold scores 2,428 against the Phi’s 485, an 80.0% lead. This appears twice in the data, under both single-thread and singlethread test names. Floating-point math goes to the Gold by 35.8%, at 73,873 vs 47,417. Multithread performance favors the Gold by 43.8%, with a score of 31,718 versus 17,839. Prime number finding is a 26.9% win for the Gold, at 156 vs 114. Physics is closer, with the Gold at 2,395 versus 2,257, a 5.8% margin. These results show the Gold’s ability to win both lightly threaded and heavily threaded tests, making its overall 12-to-5 win tally a reflection of broader applicability. The single-thread result alone, with its 80.0% delta, is the largest performance gap in the entire comparison and underscores the generational difference in per-core efficiency between Knights Landing and Cooper Lake.