AMD EPYC 4564P vs Intel Xeon w7-3555 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall victory for the Intel Xeon w7-3555, which wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The AMD EPYC 4564P takes 4 wins, but those wins are concentrated in specific workloads that favor its higher clock speeds and newer architecture. The Intel part leads by an average of 3.6% across all Cinebench tests, while its Passmark wins range from 5.3% to a massive 71% in physics simulation.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Intel Xeon w7-3555 wins every single test. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 5804 against the EPYC's 5603, a 3.6% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar 3.5% lead, with scores of 819 versus 791. This pattern repeats in R20 and R23, where the Intel chip maintains exactly 3.6% leads in both multicore and single-core tests. The R20 multicore result is 24187 versus 23348, while R23 multicore shows 57590 against 55592. The consistency of these deltas suggests the Intel Xeon w7-3555 has a balanced architectural advantage that scales across all rendering workloads.

The Passmark suite reveals where the AMD EPYC 4564P fights back. The most striking Intel win is in floating point math, where it scores 190917 against 141017, a 35.4% blowout. Physics simulation is even more lopsided: 5802 versus 3392, a 71% advantage for Intel. Extended instructions also favor Intel heavily, with 77619 versus 63136, a 22.9% gap. Data compression shows a 12.7% Intel lead (966970 versus 858105), and integer math is 6.9% higher (244642 versus 228761). Prime number finding is 9% faster on Intel, and the multithread score is 5.3% higher (67754 versus 64357).

The AMD EPYC 4564P counters with three notable wins. The single-thread Passmark score is its best result: 4292 versus 3549, a 17.3% advantage. Random string sorting goes to AMD by 6.9% (103202 versus 96112), and data encryption is 5.3% faster (50708 versus 48007). These wins show the EPYC's strength in latency-sensitive single-threaded operations and memory-intensive sorting tasks, but they do not offset the sheer volume of Intel's wins.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry, while the AMD EPYC 4564P uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. This node difference explains some of the AMD chip's efficiency and clock speed advantages, though the Intel part compensates with a much larger physical footprint: 4x 477 mm² die size versus 2x 71 mm² for AMD.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 packs 28 cores and 56 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4564P has 16 cores and 32 threads. The EPYC's cores run at a 4.50 GHz base clock and boost to 5.70 GHz, dramatically higher than the Intel's 2.70 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. This clock difference explains why AMD wins the single-thread Passmark test despite having fewer cores.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Intel chip allocates 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 75 MB L3 cache. The AMD chip uses 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, but its 64 MB L3 is shared across all cores. The Intel part has a larger total L3 cache by 11 MB, which helps in multi-threaded workloads that benefit from larger shared pools.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 supports eight-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 307.2 GB/s. The AMD EPYC 4564P uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. That is nearly a 4x bandwidth advantage for Intel, which explains its dominance in data compression and floating point math. Both chips support ECC memory, but the Intel part provides far more PCIe lanes: 112 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, versus 28 Gen 5 lanes for AMD.

The AMD EPYC 4564P is based on the Raphael codename, part of the Zen 4 architecture, while the Intel Xeon w7-3555 uses Sapphire Rapids. The EPYC integrates Radeon Graphics, whereas the Intel part has no integrated graphics. Both are active production parts, but the AMD chip launched on 2024-05-20, roughly three months before Intel's 2024-08-23 release date.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon w7-3555 is the clear choice for compute-heavy, throughput-oriented workloads. Its 71% physics advantage and 35.4% floating point lead make it ideal for scientific simulation, finite element analysis, and any workload that relies heavily on mathematical operations. The 22.9% lead in extended instructions points to strong SIMD and vector processing capabilities, which benefit machine learning inference and signal processing tasks. Data compression workloads, which often appear in database and archival systems, run 12.7% faster on Intel. For multi-threaded rendering in Cinebench, the Intel part maintains a consistent 3.6% edge across all versions, making it suitable for 3D animation and video production.

The AMD EPYC 4564P wins where single-thread responsiveness and memory latency matter most. Its 17.3% single-thread Passmark lead indicates better performance in lightly threaded applications like legacy database queries or interactive workloads. Random string sorting, a test that stresses memory access patterns and pointer chasing, runs 6.9% faster on AMD, suggesting better memory latency characteristics despite the lower bandwidth. Data encryption is 5.3% faster on AMD, which could matter for secure communication and storage systems that perform frequent cryptographic operations.

The architecture differences reinforce these workload splits. Intel's massive memory bandwidth (307.2 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s) powers its data-intensive wins, while AMD's higher clock speeds (5.70 GHz boost versus 4.80 GHz) drive its single-thread performance. The EPYC's smaller core count means each core gets more of the memory bandwidth, but the overall system bandwidth is far lower.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon w7-3555 | AMD EPYC 4564P |

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

| Cores | 28 | 16 |

| Threads | 56 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| TDP | 325 W | 170 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4677 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 4x 477 mm² | 2x 71 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 Cache | 75 MB | 64 MB (shared) |

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

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

| PCIe | Gen 5, 112 Lanes | Gen 5, 28 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Radeon Graphics |

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

| Transistors | Not listed | 13,140 million |

| Part Number | SRN75 | 100-000001476 |

The TDP difference is notable: the Intel Xeon w7-3555 draws 325 W, nearly double the EPYC's 170 W. This power envelope explains why Intel can maintain higher core counts and memory bandwidth, but it also means the AMD part is far easier to cool and integrate into dense server deployments. The Intel chip's launch MSRP is $2339, while the AMD EPYC 4564P launched at $699.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3555 has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4564P has 16 cores and 32 threads. Intel leads by 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Why does the AMD EPYC 4564P win the single-thread Passmark test?

A: The EPYC 4564P scores 4292 versus 3549 for Intel, a 17.3% advantage. Its higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz, compared to Intel's 4.80 GHz, drives this single-thread performance lead, despite Intel's larger cache per core.

Q: How much faster is the Intel chip in floating point math?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3555 scores 190917 in Passmark floating point math versus 141017 for AMD, a 35.4% advantage. This likely stems from Intel's eight-channel memory system providing 307.2 GB/s bandwidth, versus AMD's 83.2 GB/s dual-channel setup.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between these processors?

A: The largest gap is in Passmark physics, where Intel scores 5802 against AMD's 3392, a 71% difference. This suggests a massive advantage in physics simulation workloads for the Intel part.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon w7-3555 and AMD EPYC 4564P support ECC memory. However, Intel provides eight-channel memory support while AMD offers dual-channel, leading to a 307.2 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s bandwidth difference.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3555 has an average benchmark score of 106192, compared to 95183 for the AMD EPYC 4564P. The Intel part also ranks at the 97th percentile among all CPUs, versus the 96th percentile for AMD.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Xeon w7-3555 is the superior processor for multi-threaded, compute-intensive workloads. It wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, including every Cinebench test and the majority of Passmark tests. Its largest advantages come in physics (71%), floating point math (35.4%), and extended instructions (22.9%), making it the clear choice for scientific computing, simulation, and vector-heavy applications. The eight-channel memory system with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth gives it a decisive edge in data compression (12.7%) and integer math (6.9%). For users who prioritize raw throughput and have the power budget to handle a 325 W TDP, the Intel Xeon w7-3555 is the recommended option.

The AMD EPYC 4564P is the better pick for single-threaded and latency-sensitive workloads. Its 17.3% single-thread Passmark win and 6.9% random string sorting advantage show that high clock speeds (5.70 GHz boost) and a 5 nm process from TSMC deliver real benefits in interactive or lightly threaded scenarios. The 5.3% encryption win adds to its appeal for security-focused applications. With a 170 W TDP, it offers a much lower power footprint, and its 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs shows it remains a strong performer. For deployments where power efficiency, single-thread speed, and smaller physical footprint matter more than raw multi-threaded throughput, the AMD EPYC 4564P is the sensible choice.