AMD EPYC 4465P vs Intel Xeon 6515P Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6515P and AMD EPYC 4465P are both active server/workstation processors, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The data shows a near-total dead heat in overall average benchmark scores, with the Intel Xeon 6515P scoring 67,006 against the AMD EPYC 4465P's 66,925, a mere 0.1% difference. Both sit at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. However, the head-to-head results reveal a stark split: the EPYC wins 12 of 17 tests, while the Xeon takes 5, with the margins of victory telling the real story about their respective strengths.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive single advantage belongs to the AMD EPYC 4465P in single-threaded performance. In the PassMark single-thread test, the EPYC scores 4,575 against the Xeon's 2,855, a massive 37.6% lead. This advantage carries across all Cinebench single-core tests, where the EPYC is consistently 10.2% ahead in R15, R20, and R23 single-core runs. The EPYC's 5.40 GHz boost clock versus the Xeon's 3.80 GHz explains this dominance in lightly threaded workloads.

In multi-threaded Cinebench tests, the EPYC again wins every round, but by a narrower margin. The R23 multi-core result shows the EPYC at 42,918 versus the Xeon's 38,547, again a 10.2% lead. This is notable because the Xeon has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the EPYC has only 12 cores and 24 threads. Despite having 25% fewer cores, the EPYC still outperforms the Xeon in heavily threaded render workloads. The PassMark multithread test confirms this trend, with the EPYC scoring 49,871 against the Xeon's 45,350, a 9.1% advantage.

The Intel Xeon 6515P fights back in specific computational domains. Its biggest win is in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 53,383 versus the EPYC's 42,867, a commanding 24.5% lead. This suggests the Xeon's architecture is substantially better optimized for specialized instruction sets. Similarly, the Xeon dominates floating-point math, scoring 128,954 against the EPYC's 105,833, a 21.8% margin. In prime number finding, the Xeon leads by 13.9% (385 vs. 338), and in physics calculations it edges ahead by 5% (3,829 vs. 3,647).

The remaining tests split more narrowly. The Xeon wins data compression by 2.7% (592,645 vs. 577,210), while the EPYC counters in data encryption by 5.3% (32,184 vs. 30,476). The EPYC also takes integer math by 15.8% (174,551 vs. 147,047) and random string sorting by 4.7% (67,597 vs. 64,425). The overall picture is one of specialization: the EPYC excels at general-purpose throughput and single-thread responsiveness, while the Xeon is a specialist in floating-point, extended instructions, and compression workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 6515P has a marginally higher average benchmark score of 67,006 compared to the AMD EPYC 4465P's 66,925, a difference of just 0.1%.

Q: How does the core count compare between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon 6515P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4465P has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Xeon has 4 more cores and 8 more threads.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the AMD EPYC 4465P leads by 37.6%, scoring 4,575 versus the Intel Xeon 6515P's 2,855.

Q: Is there any test where the Intel Xeon 6515P wins by a large margin?

A: Yes, the Xeon wins PassMark extended instructions by 24.5% (53,383 vs. 42,867) and floating-point math by 21.8% (128,954 vs. 105,833).

Q: What are the release dates for these processors?

A: The Intel Xeon 6515P was released on 2025-02-23, and the AMD EPYC 4465P was released on 2025-05-12.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon 6515P and the AMD EPYC 4465P support ECC memory, and both support DDR5 memory.

Architecture Differences

The two chips are built on different process nodes and by different foundries. The Intel Xeon 6515P uses Intel's 5 nm process and is manufactured by Intel, while the AMD EPYC 4465P uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The EPYC's architecture is Zen 5, codenamed "Grado," and it belongs to the EPYC 4005 series. The Xeon uses the Granite Rapids architecture, part of the Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP) generation.

The cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Xeon has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 72 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. This means the Xeon has more per-core cache and more total L3 (72 MB vs. 64 MB), which may contribute to its wins in extended instructions and floating-point math.

The EPYC is a chiplet design, with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm² and 16,630 million transistors. The Xeon's transistor count and die size are not listed in the data. The EPYC also includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics (N/A). The EPYC's memory bus is dual-channel with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon uses an eight-channel memory bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. This represents a massive difference in theoretical memory throughput, with the Xeon offering over 4.5 times the bandwidth.

The PCIe configurations are also starkly different. The Xeon provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only). This makes the Xeon far more suitable for high-density I/O and expansion-heavy systems.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ, with the Xeon having 16 cores and 32 threads versus the EPYC's 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 2.30 GHz for the Xeon and 3.40 GHz for the EPYC. Boost clocks are 3.80 GHz for the Xeon and 5.40 GHz for the EPYC. The TDP ratings are dramatically different: the Xeon is rated at 150 W, while the EPYC is rated at just 65 W.

The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5. The memory channels differ (eight-channel vs. dual-channel), as does memory bandwidth (409.6 GB/s vs. 89.6 GB/s). The process nodes are 5 nm (Intel) vs. 4 nm (TSMC). The EPYC has integrated Radeon Graphics; the Xeon has none. The PCIe lane counts are 88 (Xeon) vs. 24 (EPYC). The launch MSRP for the Intel Xeon 6515P is $740, and the launch MSRP for the AMD EPYC 4465P is $399.

Other differences: the EPYC's part number is 100-000001558, while the Xeon's is SRVU6. The EPYC's series is listed as EPYC 4005 series, while the Xeon has no series listed. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4465P is the clear winner for general-purpose server and workstation workloads that benefit from high single-thread performance and strong multi-threaded throughput. Its 37.6% lead in PassMark single-thread and consistent 10.2% lead across all Cinebench tests makes it the better choice for database-driven applications, web serving, and any workload that is latency-sensitive or relies on fast response times. It also wins integer math by 15.8% and data encryption by 5.3%, making it suitable for general business computing and security-related tasks. The EPYC's 65 W TDP and dual-channel memory also suggest it can be deployed in more power-constrained environments, though the data does not include power consumption metrics beyond TDP.

The Intel Xeon 6515P is the specialist for compute-intensive scientific and engineering workloads. Its 24.5% lead in extended instructions and 21.8% lead in floating-point math make it the stronger choice for simulations, financial modeling, and any application that relies heavily on vectorized or floating-point calculations. The Xeon also wins data compression by 2.7%, prime number finding by 13.9%, and physics by 5%, indicating strength in specific algorithm-heavy tasks. The eight-channel memory bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth and 88 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it the superior platform for high-bandwidth applications like large-scale data analytics, in-memory databases, and systems requiring extensive I/O expansion. For users prioritizing raw compute in floating-point or extended instruction domains, the Xeon is the pick. For everything else, the EPYC offers superior general performance with its higher clock speeds and efficient architecture.