AMD EPYC 4564P vs Intel Xeon 654 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of the head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 4564P wins 13 of the 17 documented head-to-head tests, while the Intel Xeon 654 wins only 4. This decisive margin spans Cinebench and PassMark workloads, establishing the EPYC as the dominant overall performer in this pairing.

Q: How large is the EPYC 4564P's lead in single-threaded performance?

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the EPYC 4564P scores 4292 against the Xeon 654's 3778, a 13.6% advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core result shows a tighter but consistent gap: 7848 versus 7362, also a 6.6% difference.

Q: Where does the Intel Xeon 654 outperform the AMD EPYC 4564P?

A: The Xeon 654 wins in four PassMark subtests: extended instructions (63539 vs 63136, a 0.6% edge), find prime numbers (390 vs 365, a 6.4% lead), floating-point math (163093 vs 141017, a 13.5% advantage), and physics (5596 vs 3392, a massive 39.4% win).

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between these two CPUs?

A: The EPYC 4564P has an average benchmark score of 95183, while the Xeon 654 averages 90717. Both processors sit in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, but the EPYC holds a roughly 4.9% overall average score advantage.

Q: How do these processors compare in memory bandwidth and channels?

A: The Xeon 654 offers eight-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, whereas the EPYC 4564P uses dual-channel DDR5 at 83.2 GB/s. This difference is substantial, favoring the Xeon by a factor of roughly five in theoretical bandwidth.

Q: What are the launch MSRPs for these two server processors?

A: The AMD EPYC 4564P has a launch MSRP of $699, while the Intel Xeon 654 carries a launch MSRP of $1199. The EPYC is also the more recent release, dated 2024-05-20, versus the Xeon's 2026-02-01.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 4564P is built on the Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Raphael) using a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a transistor count of 13,140 million spread across 2x 71 mm² dies. It is part of the EPYC 4004 series and uses AMD Socket AM5. The Intel Xeon 654, by contrast, is a Granite Rapids part (Xeon 600 generation, Granite Rapids-WS) also on a 5 nm node but fabricated by Intel, with a much larger die size of 2x 598 mm². The EPYC has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Xeon packs 18 cores and 36 threads, giving Intel a core count advantage of two cores and four threads.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. The EPYC 4564P provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon 654 offers larger per-core caches: 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, plus 72 MB of shared L3. This gives Intel an edge in total cache capacity, particularly in L3 where it leads by 8 MB.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The EPYC 4564P supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The Xeon 654 supports eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth, a fivefold increase. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC provides 28 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon provides 128 Gen 5 lanes, a significant expansion for I/O-heavy workloads.

Integrated graphics are present on the EPYC 4564P (Radeon Graphics) but absent on the Xeon 654 (N/A). The EPYC has a locked multiplier, while the Xeon 654 has an unlocked multiplier, suggesting overclocking headroom on the Intel part. The EPYC's base clock is 4.50 GHz with a boost of 5.70 GHz, far above the Xeon's 3.10 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The EPYC also has a lower TDP at 170 watts versus the Xeon's 200 watts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 4564P dominates the Cinebench suite with a uniform 6.6% margin across all six tests. In R15 multi-core, it scores 5603 versus 5256; in R15 single-core, it scores 791 versus 742. The R20 results show 23348 against 21903 multi-core and 3296 against 3092 single-core. R23 multi-core yields 55592 versus 52150, and R23 single-core yields 7848 versus 7362. These consistent deltas indicate the EPYC's architectural efficiency translates across both synthetic rendering and single-thread workloads.

PassMark results are more varied. The EPYC wins data compression with 858105 versus 818902, a 4.8% margin. Data encryption is a major win for AMD: 50708 versus 40675, a 24.7% lead. Random string sorting shows a similar 24.6% advantage: 103202 versus 82828. Integer math goes to the EPYC at 228761 versus 207745, a 10.1% gain. The multithread test favors AMD at 64357 versus 61353, a 4.9% edge. Single-thread PassMark gives the EPYC a 13.6% win at 4292 versus 3778.

The Intel Xeon 654 counters in four specific areas. Extended instructions are nearly tied: 63539 versus 63136, a 0.6% edge for Intel. Prime number finding shows Intel ahead at 390 versus 365, a 6.4% lead. Floating-point math is a stronger Intel showing: 163093 versus 141017, a 13.5% advantage. The most lopsided result of the entire comparison is PassMark physics, where the Xeon scores 5596 against the EPYC's 3392 — a 39.4% victory for Intel.

The overall score distribution is telling. The EPYC wins 13 tests, the Xeon 4. However, the average benchmark score gap is modest: 95183 for AMD versus 90717 for Intel. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9175F at 95615 (-0.5% delta) and the AMD EPYC 4565P at 95764 (-0.6%), while the Xeon 654 sits near the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 at 90541 (0.2% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX at 91199 (-0.5%).

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD EPYC 4564P as the stronger all-around processor for this comparison. It wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench workload, and holds a higher average benchmark score (95183 versus 90717). The EPYC's single-thread leadership is decisive at 13.6% in PassMark and 6.6% in Cinebench R23, which matters for latency-sensitive server tasks. Its wins in data encryption (24.7% ahead) and random string sorting (24.6% ahead) suggest significant advantages in security and data-processing workloads.

However, the Intel Xeon 654 is not without purpose. Its physics result (5596 versus 3392, a 39.4% lead) points to a distinct strength in simulation or physics-heavy compute. The floating-point math win (13.5%) reinforces this. The Xeon's eight-channel memory (409.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s) and 128 PCIe lanes versus 28 are architectural advantages that the benchmark scores do not fully capture. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound or require extensive I/O expansion, the Xeon 654's platform capabilities could outweigh its compute deficits.

The EPYC 4564P is the pick for general server compute, single-thread responsiveness, and data-centric tasks like encryption and sorting. The Xeon 654 is the pick for physics simulation, floating-point-heavy code, and any deployment that demands massive memory bandwidth or PCIe expansion. The EPYC also offers a lower TDP (170 versus 200 watts) and a launch MSRP of $699 versus $1199, though pricing considerations are separate from performance analysis.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4564P | Intel Xeon 654 |

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

| Cores | 16 | 18 |

| Threads | 32 | 36 |

| Base Clock | 4.50 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.70 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 170 W | 200 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Granite Rapids |

| Codename | Raphael | Granite Rapids |

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

| Die Size | 2x 71 mm² | 2x 598 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 72 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 409.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 28 Lanes | Gen 5, 128 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | N/A |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $699 | $1199 |

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 4564P wins in: Cinebench rendering across all versions (R15, R20, R23, both multi-core and single-core, each by 6.6%), PassMark data compression (4.8% ahead), data encryption (24.7% ahead), integer math (10.1% ahead), multithread (4.9% ahead), random string sorting (24.6% ahead), and single-thread performance (13.6% ahead). This makes it the superior choice for general compute, database encryption, integer processing, and any workload that benefits from higher clock speeds (4.50 GHz base, 5.70 GHz boost) and lower TDP (170 W).

Intel Xeon 654 wins in: PassMark extended instructions (0.6% ahead), find prime numbers (6.4% ahead), floating-point math (13.5% ahead), and physics (39.4% ahead). Its eight-channel memory (409.6 GB/s) and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes are unmatched by the EPYC's dual-channel (83.2 GB/s) and 28 lanes. The Xeon's larger L3 cache (72 MB versus 64 MB) and per-core L2 (2 MB versus 1 MB) support its physics and floating-point strengths. The unlocked multiplier is a bonus for overclocking. This makes the Xeon the pick for physics simulation, floating-point-heavy analytics, and high-bandwidth memory access patterns.