AMD EPYC 4484PX vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4484PX is the clear performance leader in most measured workloads, winning 13 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its dominance is most pronounced in single-threaded and throughput-heavy tests, where it leads by margins ranging from 1.6% to 81.7%. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 wins the remaining four tests, all of which fall into specific data-processing or legacy instruction categories.

The EPYC 4484PX takes every Cinebench generation tested. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 42,964 against the Xeon's 28,561, a 33.5% advantage. Single-core results follow the same pattern: 6,065 versus 4,032 in R23, again a 33.5% gap. The PassMark multi-thread test shows an even larger spread, with the AMD part scoring 50,547 versus 29,986, a 40.7% lead. Physics simulation is its biggest win: 4,938 versus 903, an 81.7% margin. Prime number finding shows an 80.2% advantage (425 versus 84), and data encryption is 75.9% ahead (36,499 versus 8,798).

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270's four wins are narrower but meaningful. Data compression is its largest victory: 728,144 versus 603,371, a 20.7% lead. Extended instructions follow at 18.2% ahead (51,191 versus 43,315). Random string sorting shows a 12% advantage (80,208 versus 71,642). Floating-point math is a near tie, with the Xeon ahead by just 3.1% (99,432 versus 96,446).

The workload split is clear: the EPYC 4484PX excels at encryption, physics, prime-number computation, and all rendering tasks, while the Xeon retains a niche in compression, string sorting, extended instruction sets, and a marginal edge in floating-point math. Integer math is effectively even, with the AMD part ahead by only 1.6% (162,993 versus 160,322).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras and approaches. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 is built on Cascade Lake-SP, a 14 nm process from Intel's own foundry. It packs 26 cores and 52 threads. The AMD EPYC 4484PX uses Zen 4 (Raphael), manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm node, with 12 cores and 24 threads. AMD's chip integrates 17,840 million transistors across a 2x 71 mm² die arrangement; Intel's chip has 8,000 million transistors on a monolithic die.

Cache organization differs substantially. Both allocate 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache is where the gap appears: the Xeon has 35.75 MB shared, while the EPYC has 128 MB shared, augmented by a 1x 64 MB 3D V-Cache slice. This large cache pool likely contributes to the AMD part's strong single-threaded and encryption performance.

Memory support diverges completely. The Xeon uses DDR4, while the EPYC uses DDR5 with dual-channel support and a measured memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The Xeon's memory bus and bandwidth are not recorded in the database. The EPYC also brings PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only) and integrated Radeon Graphics, whereas the Xeon lists no PCIe or integrated graphics data.

Clock speeds favor AMD decisively. The EPYC runs at a 4.40 GHz base and 5.60 GHz boost, versus the Xeon's 2.70 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. Power draw flips the other way: the Xeon has a 205 W TDP, the EPYC just 120 W. Sockets differ as well: Intel Socket 3647 for the Xeon, AMD Socket AM5 for the EPYC. Release dates are nearly six years apart, with the Xeon launching in December 2018 and the EPYC in May 2024. The EPYC carries a launch MSRP of $599; the Xeon has no recorded launch price.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 has 26 cores and 52 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4484PX has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Xeon offers more than double the core count.

Q: Why does the AMD EPYC 4484PX win so many benchmarks despite having fewer cores?

A: The EPYC 4484PX compensates with a much higher clock speed (4.40 GHz base, 5.60 GHz boost versus 2.70 GHz and 4.00 GHz) and a much larger L3 cache (128 MB shared plus a 64 MB 3D V-Cache slice versus 35.75 MB). It also uses a newer 5 nm process and DDR5 memory.

Q: In which benchmarks does the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 outperform the AMD EPYC 4484PX?

A: The Xeon wins data compression (728,144 versus 603,371), extended instructions (51,191 versus 43,315), random string sorting (80,208 versus 71,642), and floating-point math (99,432 versus 96,446). Its largest win is 20.7% in data compression.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 has a 205 W TDP, while the AMD EPYC 4484PX has a 120 W TDP. The AMD part draws substantially less power while delivering higher performance in most tests.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 and the AMD EPYC 4484PX support ECC memory. The Xeon uses DDR4, and the EPYC uses DDR5.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon Platinum 8270 has an average benchmark score of 71,370, and the EPYC 4484PX has an average of 67,822. Both sit at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, but the Xeon's average is slightly higher because its wins in compression and extended instructions carry large absolute values.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 | AMD EPYC 4484PX |

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

| Cores | 26 | 12 |

| Threads | 52 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 205 W | 120 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 3647 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Architecture | Cascade Lake | Zen 4 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 17,840 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 2x 71 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 35.75 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |

| 3D V-Cache | None | 1x 64 MB slice |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Not recorded | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 83.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Not recorded | Gen 5, 28 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None recorded | Radeon Graphics |

| Release Date | December 2018 | May 2024 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $599 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 4484PX dominates the Cinebench suite across the board. In Cinebench R15, it scores 4,330 multi-core and 611 single-core, versus 2,878 and 406 for the Xeon, both results showing a 33.5% to 33.6% advantage. Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern: 18,044 versus 11,995 multi-core and 2,547 versus 1,693 single-core, each a 33.5% gap. Cinebench R23 continues with 42,964 versus 28,561 multi-core and 6,065 versus 4,032 single-core, again 33.5% apart.

PassMark tests reveal the most extreme disparities. Physics simulation shows the EPYC at 4,938 versus the Xeon's 903, an 81.7% lead. Finding prime numbers yields 425 versus 84, an 80.2% margin. Data encryption shows 36,499 versus 8,798, a 75.9% difference. Single-thread performance is 43.6% higher on the EPYC: 4,119 versus 2,325. The multithread score of 50,547 versus 29,986 represents a 40.7% advantage. Integer math is close, with the EPYC ahead by just 1.6% (162,993 versus 160,322).

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270's wins are concentrated in four areas. Data compression shows its best result: 728,144 versus 603,371, a 20.7% lead. Extended instructions follow at 51,191 versus 43,315, an 18.2% advantage. Random string sorting gives 80,208 versus 71,642, a 12% edge. Floating-point math is the closest contest: 99,432 versus 96,446, a 3.1% win for Intel.

The pattern is consistent: the EPYC 4484PX wins by huge margins in tests that reward clock speed, cache capacity, and modern instruction efficiency, while the Xeon wins by smaller margins in tests that appear to favor its higher core count or older execution characteristics.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD EPYC 4484PX for nearly all modern workloads. The data shows it is faster in every Cinebench test, in PassMark multithreading, in single-thread performance, in encryption, in physics simulation, and in prime-number computation. Its 33.5% lead across all Cinebench generations is consistent and repeatable. Encryption performance is 75.9% higher, physics simulation is 81.7% higher, and single-thread scores are 43.6% higher. The EPYC also does this with a 120 W TDP versus 205 W for the Xeon, a significant efficiency advantage. Its 128 MB L3 cache plus 64 MB 3D V-Cache, DDR5 memory, and 5.60 GHz boost clock provide the architectural foundation for these results.

Choose the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 only if your workload specifically relies on data compression, extended instruction sets, random string sorting, or floating-point math, where it holds leads of 20.7%, 18.2%, 12%, and 3.1% respectively. The Xeon's 26 cores and 52 threads may also matter for highly parallel legacy workloads that scale with core count rather than per-core speed, though the benchmark data shows the EPYC winning the multithread test by 40.7% anyway. The Xeon's average benchmark score of 71,370 is slightly higher than the EPYC's 67,822, but that aggregate figure is skewed by the Xeon's large absolute wins in compression and extended instructions. The head-to-head record of 13 wins for AMD versus 4 for Intel tells the real story. For general server and workstation use, the EPYC 4484PX is the superior processor.