AMD EPYC 4484PX vs Intel Xeon w5-3525 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4484PX and Intel Xeon w5-3525 are both 94th-percentile workstation processors, but they achieve that standing through completely different means. The AMD chip leans on a 5 nm Zen 4 design with a massive 128 MB L3 cache and clock speeds up to 5.60 GHz, while the Intel part counters with a 16-core Sapphire Rapids design, eight-channel memory, and a much higher 290 W TDP. Benchmark results show the EPYC winning 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, yet the Xeon takes decisive victories in specific workloads that favor its wider memory bus and core count. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 67822 for the EPYC versus 67673 for the Xeon — but the distribution of wins tells a clear story about which tasks each processor handles best.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4484PX dominates nearly every category that depends on single-thread speed, cache bandwidth, or raw integer throughput. In Cinebench tests, the EPYC wins all six variants — R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core — by a consistent 10.3% margin. That consistency suggests the advantage comes from the higher 5.60 GHz boost clock and the 128 MB shared L3 cache, not from any workload-specific optimization. The PassMark single-thread test shows an even larger gap: 4119 versus 3330, a 23.7% lead for AMD. Integer math also favors the EPYC, with a 5% win (162993 vs 155282), and the gap balloons to 95% in the find prime numbers test (425 vs 218), which is heavily dependent on single-core performance and cache latency.

The EPYC also wins all the multithreaded synthetic tests that rely on cache and per-core efficiency rather than pure core count. PassMark multithread shows a 10.3% advantage (50547 vs 45841), matching the Cinebench multi-core margins. Physics simulation goes to the EPYC by 64.5% (4938 vs 3002), and random string sorting goes to AMD by 12.7% (71642 vs 63579). Data encryption is another strong EPYC win at 19.6% (36499 vs 30507), which points to the 3D V-Cache slice helping with memory-bound cryptographic workloads.

The Intel Xeon w5-3525 wins only three tests, but they are telling. Floating point math is its biggest victory, scoring 121050 versus 96446 — a 20.3% lead for Intel. Extended instructions (AVX-512-style workloads) favor the Xeon by 12% (49242 vs 43315). Data compression is a narrow Intel win at 607435 versus 603371, just 0.7% ahead. These three wins map directly to the Xeon's 16 physical cores versus 12, plus its eight-channel memory bus delivering 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the EPYC's 83.2 GB/s dual-channel setup. For workloads that stream large data sets or use wide vector instructions, the Xeon's memory bandwidth and extra cores overcome the EPYC's per-core speed.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD EPYC 4484PX if your work is dominated by single-thread performance, cache-sensitive integer workloads, or general-purpose multithreaded rendering. The data shows a 10.3% advantage across every Cinebench test, a 23.7% lead in single-thread PassMark, and a 64.5% win in physics simulation. The 5.60 GHz boost clock and 128 MB L3 cache make it the better choice for CAD, simulation, and any software that rewards low latency over raw bandwidth. It also delivers this with a 120 W TDP versus 290 W, making it substantially easier to cool and power.

Pick the Intel Xeon w5-3525 if your workloads are floating-point heavy, use extended instruction sets, or require massive memory bandwidth. The 20.3% win in floating point math and 12% win in extended instructions are not marginal — they reflect the Xeon's architectural strengths. The eight-channel memory bus at 307.2 GB/s is a massive advantage for data streaming, and the data compression win, however small, confirms the Xeon handles memory-bound throughput tasks well. For scientific computing, financial modeling, or any workload that saturates memory channels, the Xeon is the data-backed choice.

The overall benchmark scores are nearly tied — the EPYC averages 67822 versus 67673 for the Xeon, a 0.2% difference. Neither processor is categorically faster; they are specialized tools. The EPYC wins 14 tests, the Xeon wins 3, but the Xeon's wins are in categories that often matter more for specific professional applications. Evaluate your software's instruction mix before choosing.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Cinebench results are uniformly in AMD's favor. R15 multi-core: 4330 vs 3927. R15 single-core: 611 vs 554. R20 multi-core: 18044 vs 16364. R20 single-core: 2547 vs 2310. R23 multi-core: 42964 vs 38964. R23 single-core: 6065 vs 5500. Every single one shows exactly a 10.3% delta. That uniformity is remarkable — it indicates the EPYC's per-core advantage translates perfectly to multi-core scaling, meaning the 12-core AMD chip outperforms the 16-core Intel chip in threaded rendering by the same margin it wins single-threaded tests.

PassMark single-thread results show an even larger gap. The EPYC scores 4119, the Xeon 3330, giving AMD a 23.7% lead. This is the biggest single-thread margin in the entire comparison, and it explains why the EPYC wins the find prime numbers test by 95% — that benchmark is notoriously sensitive to single-core speed and cache behavior. The EPYC's 5.60 GHz boost clock and 128 MB L3 cache simply overwhelm the Xeon's 4.80 GHz boost and 45 MB L3.

The Xeon's reply comes in floating point math. Intel scores 121050 against AMD's 96446, a 20.3% win. This is the largest delta in the entire test suite. Extended instructions follow at 49242 vs 43315, a 12% Intel advantage. These two tests show the Xeon's 16 cores and wide memory interface paying off when the workload is purely numeric and parallel. Data compression is the Xeon's narrowest win — 607435 vs 603371, just 0.7% — but it still counts.

The remaining PassMark tests break toward AMD. Integer math: 162993 vs 155282 (5% AMD). Multithread: 50547 vs 45841 (10.3% AMD). Physics: 4938 vs 3002 (64.5% AMD). Random string sorting: 71642 vs 63579 (12.7% AMD). Data encryption: 36499 vs 30507 (19.6% AMD). The physics test is particularly striking — a 64.5% win shows the EPYC's cache architecture excels at the chaotic, pointer-chasing patterns typical of physics engines.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 4484PX. It wins the Cinebench R23 single-core test with 6065 against the Xeon's 5500, a 10.3% margin. PassMark single-thread shows 4119 vs 3330, a 23.7% lead.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon w5-3525 beat the AMD EPYC in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in three tests. Floating point math shows a 20.3% Intel advantage (121050 vs 96446), extended instructions show a 12% lead (49242 vs 43315), and data compression is a narrow 0.7% win (607435 vs 603371).

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon w5-3525 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4484PX has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: How do the memory systems differ?

A: The Intel Xeon uses eight-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 307.2 GB/s. The AMD EPYC uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has the larger cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 4484PX has 128 MB of shared L3 cache plus an additional 1x 64MB 3D V-Cache slice. The Intel Xeon w5-3525 has 45 MB of L3 cache.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 4484PX has a 120 W TDP, while the Intel Xeon w5-3525 has a 290 W TDP. The AMD chip also uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm process.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 4484PX is built on Zen 4 architecture with the Raphael codename, manufactured on TSMC's 5 nm process. It uses a chiplet design with a die size of 2x 71 mm² and 17,840 million transistors. The Intel Xeon w5-3525 uses Sapphire Rapids architecture on Intel's 10 nm process, with a die size of 4x 477 mm². These are fundamentally different approaches — AMD uses a smaller, denser process with fewer but faster cores, while Intel uses a larger, more power-hungry process with more cores.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, plus 128 MB shared L3 and a 1x 64MB 3D V-Cache slice. The Xeon has 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, plus 45 MB L3. The EPYC's total cache is much larger, but the Xeon has more per-core L2 and L1. The 3D V-Cache is a unique AMD feature that adds an extra die stack for low-latency cache expansion, which explains the EPYC's wins in cache-sensitive tests like physics and encryption.

Memory architecture is the biggest divergence. The EPYC uses dual-channel memory with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, which is modest for a workstation CPU. The Xeon uses eight-channel memory with 307.2 GB/s — nearly 3.7 times the bandwidth. The Xeon also provides 112 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, versus 28 lanes on the EPYC. The EPYC includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. Both processors support ECC memory and use DDR5.

The EPYC's 5.60 GHz boost clock is 0.80 GHz higher than the Xeon's 4.80 GHz, and its base clock of 4.40 GHz is 1.20 GHz higher than the Xeon's 3.20 GHz. That clock advantage, combined with the 3D V-Cache, drives the EPYC's wins in latency-sensitive and single-threaded workloads. The Xeon's advantage is purely in core count and memory parallelism.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4484PX | Intel Xeon w5-3525 |

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

| Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Threads | 24 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 4.40 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.60 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 120 W | 290 W |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 10 nm (Intel) |

| L3 Cache | 128 MB shared + 1x 64MB V-Cache | 45 MB |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 307.2 GB/s |

| PCIe Lanes | 28 (Gen 5) | 112 (Gen 5) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | N/A |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel Socket 4677 |

| Release Date | 2024-05-20 | 2024-08-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $599 | $1339 |