AMD EPYC 4364P vs Intel Xeon w3-2535 Comparison

The Intel Xeon w3-2535 and AMD EPYC 4364P are both active server and workstation processors, yet the benchmark data shows a clear split in their strengths. The AMD EPYC 4364P wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Xeon w3-2535 takes 4, but the margins and workload types reveal that neither is a universal recommendation. This analysis walks through the recorded scores to determine where each processor excels, what the architectural differences mean, and which buyer should choose which.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4364P dominates in single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads, as well as in several multi-threaded synthetic tasks. It wins all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core), with a consistent 3.6% to 3.7% advantage in each. It also wins PassMark’s integer math, data encryption, random string sorting, and prime number finding tests. The EPYC 4364P’s wins are broad but often modest, with the largest being a 16.4% lead in prime numbers and a 13.4% lead in encryption.

The Intel Xeon w3-2535 wins in floating-point math, extended instructions, data compression, and physics. Its floating-point math score is 83,582 versus 66,946 for the EPYC, a 24.8% advantage, which is the single largest margin in the entire head-to-head set. It also leads by 8.6% in extended instructions and 4.4% in physics. However, its data compression win is narrow at 1.5% (414,399 versus 408,220). The Xeon’s wins are fewer but more concentrated in specialized compute areas.

The average benchmark scores place the Xeon slightly ahead: 46,653 versus 45,970, a gap of about 1.5%. Both processors sit at the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database, so they are in the same performance tier overall. The difference is that the EPYC wins the majority of tests, while the Xeon wins the ones where its architecture has a distinct advantage.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 4364P is built on TSMC’s 5 nm process, while the Xeon w3-2535 uses Intel’s 10 nm node. This process difference is significant: the EPYC packs 6,570 million transistors into a 71 mm² die, whereas the Xeon’s transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The EPYC uses AMD’s Zen 4 architecture with the Raphael codename, while the Xeon uses Sapphire Rapids.

Core counts differ: the Xeon has 10 cores and 20 threads, the EPYC has 8 cores and 16 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the EPYC clocks much higher, with a base of 4.50 GHz and boost of 5.40 GHz, versus 3.50 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost for the Xeon. The EPYC’s higher clocks explain its single-thread wins.

Cache layouts also diverge. The Xeon has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 26.25 MB of L3. The EPYC has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The Xeon’s larger per-core caches favor certain workloads, while the EPYC’s larger shared L3 helps with others.

Memory support is another split. The Xeon uses quad-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 140.8 GB/s, while the EPYC uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes also differ: the Xeon has Gen 5 with 64 lanes (CPU only), the EPYC has Gen 5 with 28 lanes. The EPYC includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 4677 for the Xeon, AMD Socket AM5 for the EPYC. The EPYC launched earlier, on 2024-05-20, while the Xeon followed on 2024-08-23. The Xeon’s launch MSRP is $739, while the EPYC’s is $399, though the database records no performance-per-dollar metrics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Looking at the Cinebench results, the EPYC wins every test by nearly the same margin. In R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2,982 versus 2,871, a 3.7% lead. In R15 single-core, it is 420 versus 405, a 3.6% lead. R20 multi-core shows 12,427 versus 11,965, again 3.7%. R20 single-core is 1,754 versus 1,689. R23 multi-core is 29,589 versus 28,489, and R23 single-core is 4,177 versus 4,022. The consistency of this 3.6% to 3.7% delta across all six tests suggests a clock-frequency advantage rather than a core-count advantage, as the EPYC’s boost clock is 5.40 GHz versus 4.60 GHz.

The PassMark results show a more varied picture. In data compression, the Xeon wins narrowly at 414,399 versus 408,220, a 1.5% lead. In data encryption, the EPYC wins decisively at 24,174 versus 20,931, a 13.4% lead. The Xeon’s extended instructions score is 34,318 versus 31,605, an 8.6% lead. The EPYC wins prime numbers at 177 versus 148, a 16.4% lead, which is its largest margin in any test.

Floating-point math shows the Xeon’s biggest win: 83,582 versus 66,946, a 24.8% lead. Integer math is close, with the EPYC taking it at 107,775 versus 104,596, a 2.9% lead. Multithreaded performance is nearly tied: the EPYC scores 33,883 versus 33,517, a 1.1% lead. Physics goes to the Xeon at 1,863 versus 1,785, a 4.4% lead. Random string sorting goes to the EPYC at 48,344 versus 43,413, a 10.2% lead. Single-thread tests show the EPYC at 3,619 versus 3,447, a 4.8% lead, recorded twice in the database.

The data shows the EPYC’s wins are broad but often modest, while the Xeon’s wins are concentrated in compute-heavy tasks with large margins. The Xeon’s 24.8% floating-point lead is the standout result, while the EPYC’s 13.4% encryption lead is its second-largest.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification category except for memory type (both DDR5), ECC support (both true), and production status (both active).

• Cores: Xeon 10, EPYC 8
• Threads: Xeon 20, EPYC 16
• Base clock: Xeon 3.50 GHz, EPYC 4.50 GHz
• Boost clock: Xeon 4.60 GHz, EPYC 5.40 GHz
• TDP: Xeon 185 W, EPYC 105 W
• Socket: Intel Socket 4677 versus AMD Socket AM5
• Process node: 10 nm (Intel) versus 5 nm (TSMC)
• L1 cache per core: 80 KB versus 64 KB
• L2 cache per core: 2 MB versus 1 MB
• L3 cache: 26.25 MB versus 32 MB shared
• Memory bus: Quad-channel versus dual-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 140.8 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s
• PCIe lanes: 64 versus 28 (both Gen 5, CPU only)
• Integrated graphics: N/A versus Radeon Graphics
• Release date: 2024-08-23 versus 2024-05-20
• Launch MSRP: $739 versus $399

The Xeon offers more cores, threads, cache per core, memory channels, bandwidth, and PCIe lanes. The EPYC offers higher clocks, a smaller process node, more L3 cache, and a lower TDP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 4364P has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the Intel Xeon w3-2535 boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: How do they compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC scores 29,589 versus 28,489 for the Xeon, a 3.7% lead for the EPYC.

Q: Which processor wins in floating-point math?

A: The Xeon wins by a large margin: 83,582 versus 66,946, a 24.8% advantage.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Xeon and the EPYC have ECC memory support enabled.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Xeon has quad-channel DDR5 with 140.8 GB/s, while the EPYC has dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Xeon has 64 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC has 28 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only).

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 4364P is the default pick for general multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. It wins 13 of 17 tests, including every Cinebench test, integer math, encryption, prime numbers, random string sorting, and multithreaded performance. Its higher clocks (5.40 GHz boost) and smaller process node (5 nm) give it a consistent edge in most tasks. For users who run Cinebench-style rendering, general integer compute, or encryption workloads, the EPYC is the stronger choice.

The Intel Xeon w3-2535 is the pick for floating-point-heavy and specialized instruction workloads. Its 24.8% lead in floating-point math, 8.6% lead in extended instructions, and 4.4% lead in physics indicate a hardware advantage in these areas. The Xeon also offers more cores (10 versus 8), more threads (20 versus 16), more memory bandwidth (140.8 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s), and more PCIe lanes (64 versus 28), making it the better fit for memory-intensive or I/O-heavy systems.

The average benchmark scores are close: 46,653 for the Xeon versus 45,970 for the EPYC, a 1.5% gap. Both sit at the 89th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon’s higher TDP (185 W versus 105 W) and quad-channel memory infrastructure suggest a workstation-class design, while the EPYC’s lower TDP and integrated graphics point to a more power-efficient server option. Users should choose based on the workload split: EPYC for broad performance across most tests, Xeon for floating-point and specialized compute plus greater expansion capacity.