AMD EPYC 4564P vs Intel Xeon w7-2595X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two workstation processors into distinct personality profiles. The Intel Xeon w7-2595X wins 5 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 4564P takes 12. That raw win count, however, obscures the magnitude of the victories. The database shows that Intel's wins are often decisive, while AMD's are frequently narrow.

Look at the PassMark suite first. The Xeon w7-2595X dominates in floating-point math with a score of 202,906 against the EPYC's 141,017, a 43.9% advantage. That is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. Extended instructions also favor Intel heavily: 77,613 versus 63,136, a 22.9% gap. Data compression goes to Intel at 983,046 versus 858,105, a 14.6% lead, and integer math follows at 261,384 versus 228,761, a 14.3% edge. The fifth Intel win is PassMark multithread, but that one is marginal: 64,628 versus 64,357, only 0.4% apart.

The EPYC 4564P collects its wins across a broader front, but most are slim. In Cinebench, every single test goes to AMD, yet the margins are consistently around 1.3% to 1.4%. The R23 multicore score is 55,592 versus 54,863, and the single-core score is 7,848 versus 7,745. The R15 and R20 variants show the same pattern: AMD leads by 1.3% in multicore and 1.3% to 1.4% in single-core. These are close enough that real-world differences would be difficult to perceive.

The notable AMD wins outside Cinebench come in specific workloads. Find prime numbers shows the EPYC at 365 versus 259, a 29% advantage. Physics simulation goes to AMD at 3,392 versus 2,759, an 18.7% lead. Single-thread PassMark favors AMD at 4,292 versus 3,723, a 13.3% gap. Data encryption shows a smaller AMD edge at 50,708 versus 49,782, just 1.8%. Random string sorting is nearly tied at 103,202 versus 102,230, a 0.9% AMD win.

The overall average benchmark score tells a similar story. The Xeon w7-2595X averages 108,663 points across all recorded tests, placing it in the 97th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The EPYC 4564P averages 95,183 points, in the 96th percentile. Despite AMD winning more individual tests, the Intel part holds the higher aggregate score because its wins are so much larger in magnitude. The nearest rivals data reinforces this: the Xeon sits 1.8% below the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9955 and 2.1% above the AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX. The EPYC sits 0.5% below the AMD EPYC 9175F and 1.5% above the Intel Xeon 6520P.

The Verdict

Choose the Intel Xeon w7-2595X if your workloads rely heavily on floating-point math, extended instruction sets, data compression, or integer operations. The data shows leads of 14.3% to 43.9% over the EPYC in those areas. The PassMark floating-point result, in particular, is a standout: 202,906 versus 141,017, a 43.9% gap that dwarfs any other difference in this comparison. For number-crunching applications that use AVX-512 or similar instruction paths, the Xeon's 22.9% lead in extended instructions (77,613 versus 63,136) makes it the clear pick. The 26 cores and 52 threads provide the raw throughput for compression and integer tasks, where it outperforms the EPYC by 14.6% and 14.3% respectively.

Choose the AMD EPYC 4564P if your workloads are dominated by single-threaded performance or physics simulation. The EPYC wins single-thread PassMark by 13.3% (4,292 versus 3,723) and physics by 18.7% (3,392 versus 2,759). Its prime-number finding result, 365 versus 259, is a 29% advantage that suggests strong integer-heavy single-thread tasks. The Cinebench suite also consistently favors AMD, though by only about 1.3%, so that is not a decisive factor. The EPYC also has a lower TDP at 170 watts versus 250 watts, and it includes integrated Radeon Graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely.

For mixed workloads, the aggregate data slightly favors Intel. The Xeon's average benchmark score of 108,663 versus the EPYC's 95,183 represents a meaningful overall edge, and the 97th percentile versus 96th percentile placement confirms that. But the decision should hinge on workload composition. If any of Intel's five winning test categories are critical to your use case, the Xeon's large margins there outweigh AMD's many narrow wins elsewhere. If single-thread responsiveness and physics simulation matter more, the EPYC is the better match.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest Intel victory is PassMark floating-point math. The Xeon w7-2595X scores 202,906, while the EPYC 4564P scores 141,017. That 43.9% delta is the largest in the entire comparison and reflects the Xeon's advantage in workloads that stress the floating-point pipeline. Extended instructions show a similar pattern: 77,613 versus 63,136, a 22.9% lead. These two results alone explain why the Xeon maintains a higher average benchmark score despite losing 12 of 17 comparisons.

Data compression is another Intel stronghold. The Xeon records 983,046, beating the EPYC's 858,105 by 14.6%. Integer math follows at 261,384 versus 228,761, a 14.3% lead. Even the multithread test, which one might expect to favor the higher-core-count Xeon, barely goes Intel's way: 64,628 versus 64,357, only 0.4%. That result is surprising given the Xeon's 26 cores and 52 threads against the EPYC's 16 cores and 32 threads, but the recorded data shows the two are nearly identical in this workload.

The AMD EPYC's largest win is in prime-number finding. It scores 365 against the Xeon's 259, a 29% advantage. This test typically rewards higher clock speeds and efficient single-thread execution, and the EPYC's boost clock of 5.70 GHz versus 4.80 GHz helps explain the gap. Physics simulation also goes strongly to AMD at 3,392 versus 2,759, an 18.7% lead. Single-thread PassMark shows AMD ahead by 13.3% at 4,292 versus 3,723.

The Cinebench results are uniformly close. Across R15, R20, and R23, both multicore and single-core, the EPYC wins by margins ranging from 1.3% to 1.4%. The R23 multicore score is 55,592 versus 54,863, and the R23 single-core score is 7,848 versus 7,745. These differences are within the range of run-to-run variation and should not be overinterpreted. Data encryption goes to AMD by a narrow 1.8% (50,708 versus 49,782), and random string sorting goes to AMD by 0.9% (103,202 versus 102,230).

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 4564P leads in single-thread PassMark with 4,292 versus the Intel Xeon w7-2595X's 3,723, a 13.3% advantage. The Cinebench single-core tests also favor AMD, but by only 1.3% to 1.4%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench multicore tests?

A: The EPYC 4564P wins all three Cinebench multicore tests, but the margins are small. In R15, it scores 5,603 versus 5,530 (1.3% lead). In R20, it scores 23,348 versus 23,042 (1.3% lead). In R23, it scores 55,592 versus 54,863 (1.3% lead).

Q: Which processor is better for floating-point math?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-2595X is substantially better. It scores 202,906 in PassMark floating-point math versus the EPYC's 141,017, a 43.9% advantage. This is the largest performance gap in the entire comparison.

Q: What is the core and thread difference between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-2595X has 26 cores and 52 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4564P has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the EPYC wins more individual benchmarks due to higher clock speeds.

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

A: The Intel Xeon w7-2595X averages 108,663 points across all recorded tests, placing it in the 97th percentile. The AMD EPYC 4564P averages 95,183 points, placing it in the 96th percentile.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the EPYC 4564P includes Radeon Graphics. The Intel Xeon w7-2595X has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon w7-2595X uses the Sapphire Rapids architecture built on Intel's 10 nm process. It has 26 cores with 52 threads, a base clock of 2.80 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The AMD EPYC 4564P uses the Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Raphael) built on TSMC's 5 nm process. It has 16 cores with 32 threads, a base clock of 4.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. The EPYC's smaller process node and higher clock speeds partly explain its single-thread advantages.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Xeon provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with a total L3 cache of 48.75 MB. The EPYC offers 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, but its L3 cache is 64 MB shared. The larger shared L3 on the EPYC can benefit workloads with high data reuse across cores, while the Xeon's larger per-core L2 may help with per-thread working sets.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Xeon uses quad-channel DDR5 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The EPYC uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s. The Xeon's memory bandwidth is nearly double, which supports its strengths in data compression and floating-point math where large data streams must move quickly between memory and compute units. Both support ECC memory, which is expected in server and workstation parts.

PCIe connectivity shows another split. The Xeon provides 64 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC provides 28. For systems with many GPUs, NVMe drives, or high-speed networking cards, the Xeon offers more expansion headroom. The EPYC's 28 lanes are sufficient for a single high-end GPU and a few storage devices but limit multi-GPU configurations without additional switching hardware.

The EPYC includes integrated Radeon Graphics, a feature absent from the Xeon. This means the EPYC can drive a display without a discrete GPU, which simplifies system bring-up and reduces component count in headless servers that occasionally need console access. The Xeon requires a separate graphics adapter for any display output.

The production processes reflect different foundry choices. Intel manufactures the Xeon in-house on its 10 nm node. AMD uses TSMC for the EPYC's 5 nm node. The EPYC's transistor count is listed at 13,140 million across two 71 mm² dies, while the Xeon's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The launch MSRP differs substantially. The Intel Xeon w7-2595X has a launch MSRP of $2039, while the AMD EPYC 4564P has a launch MSRP of $699. This gap is significant for system builders, though the performance differences in specific workloads may justify either choice depending on requirements.

Power consumption differs by 80 watts. The Xeon has a TDP of 250 watts, while the EPYC has a TDP of 170 watts. The EPYC's lower power draw reduces cooling requirements and operating costs, but the Xeon's higher power budget supports its additional cores and higher memory bandwidth.

Socket compatibility is entirely different. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 4677, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5. This means motherboard choice is mutually exclusive, and platform costs will differ accordingly. The Xeon's 64 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus the EPYC's 28 represent a major I/O expansion difference.

The memory bus width differs: quad-channel for the Xeon versus dual-channel for the EPYC. This drives the bandwidth gap from 153.6 GB/s down to 83.2 GB/s. For memory-intensive workloads, the Xeon's advantage here is substantial. Both support DDR5 and ECC.

Unlocked multiplier status also differs. The Xeon w7-2595X has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The EPYC 4564P does not. This gives enthusiasts and workstation users additional tuning headroom on the Intel platform.

The release dates are a few months apart. The EPYC launched on 2024-05-20, and the Xeon launched on 2024-08-23. Both remain in active production. The EPYC's part number is 100-000001476, and the Xeon's part number is SRN4C. The EPYC belongs to the EPYC 4004 series, while the Xeon has no listed series designation.