EPYC 7303 vs Xeon Platinum 8176

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Platinum 8176
2017
28 cores / 56 threads, 165 Watt
14.59
EPYC 7303
2023
16 cores / 32 threads, 130 Watt
17.99
+23.3%

EPYC 7303 outperforms Xeon Platinum 8176 by a significant 23% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Platinum 8176 and EPYC 7303 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking486337
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.2621.14
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Platinumno data
Power efficiency8.3713.10
Architecture codenameSkylake (server) (2017−2018)Milan (2021−2023)
Release date25 April 2017 (7 years ago)5 September 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$8,719$604

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7303 has 1578% better value for money than Xeon Platinum 8176.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Platinum 8176 and EPYC 7303 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores28 (Octacosa-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads5632
Base clock speed2.1 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.8 GHz3.4 GHz
Multiplier21no data
L1 cache1.75 MB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache28 MB512 KB (per core)
L3 cache38.5 MB64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm
Die sizeno data2x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature89 °Cno data
Number of transistorsno data8,300 million
64 bit support+-
Windows 11 compatibility+no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Platinum 8176 and EPYC 7303 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration8 (Multiprocessor)2
SocketFCLGA3647SP3
Power consumption (TDP)165 Watt130 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Platinum 8176 and EPYC 7303. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon Platinum 8176 and EPYC 7303 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Platinum 8176 and EPYC 7303 are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Platinum 8176 and EPYC 7303. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2666DDR4
Maximum memory size768 GBno data
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth128.001 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Platinum 8176 and EPYC 7303.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes48128

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Xeon Platinum 8176 14.59
EPYC 7303 17.99
+23.3%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Xeon Platinum 8176 23179
EPYC 7303 28572
+23.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.59 17.99
Recency 25 April 2017 5 September 2023
Physical cores 28 16
Threads 56 32
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 165 Watt 130 Watt

Xeon Platinum 8176 has 75% more physical cores and 75% more threads.

EPYC 7303, on the other hand, has a 23.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 26.9% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 7303 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon Platinum 8176 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Platinum 8176 and EPYC 7303, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Xeon Platinum 8176
Xeon Platinum 8176
AMD EPYC 7303
EPYC 7303

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.2 15 votes

Rate Xeon Platinum 8176 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 7303 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Platinum 8176 or EPYC 7303, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.