Recent studies, utilising a range of proxies, indicate that a significant perturbation to global hydrology occurred at the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM; ~56 Ma). An enhanced hydrological cycle for the warm early Eocene is also suggested to have played a key role in maintaining high-latitude warmth during this interval. However, comparisons of proxy data to General Circulation Model (GCM) simulated hydrology are limited and inter-model variability remains poorly characterised, despite significant differences in simulated surface temperatures. In this work, we undertake an intercomparison of GCM-derived precipitation and P - E distributions within the EoMIP ensemble (Lunt et al., 2012), which includes previously-published early Eocene simulations performed using five GCMs differing in boundary conditions, model structure and precipitation relevant parameterisation schemes. We show that an intensified hydrological cycle, manifested in enhanced global precipitation and evaporation rates, is simulated for all Eocene simulations relative to preindustrial. This is primarily due to elevated atmospheric paleo-CO 2 , although the effects of differences in paleogeography/ice sheets are also of importance in some models. For a given CO 2 level, globally-averaged precipitation rates vary widely between models, largely arising from different simulated surface air temperatures. Models with a similar global sensitivity of precipitation rate to temperature (d P /d T ) display different regional precipitation responses for a given temperature change. Regions that are particularly sensitive to model choice include the South Pacific, tropical Africa and the Peri-Tethys, which may represent targets for future proxy acquisition. A comparison of early and middle Eocene leaf-fossil-derived precipitation estimates with the GCM output illustrates that a number of GCMs underestimate precipitation rates at high latitudes. Models which warm these regions, either via elevated CO 2 or by varying poorly constrained model parameter values, are most successful in simulating a match with geologic data. Further data from low-latitude regions and better constraints on early Eocene CO 2 are now required to discriminate between these model simulations given the large error bars on paleoprecipitation estimates. Given the clear differences apparent between simulated precipitation distributions within the ensemble, our results suggest that paleohydrological data offer an independent means by which to evaluate model skill for warm climates.