AMD EPYC 4565P vs Intel Xeon w7-2595X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon w7-2595X and AMD EPYC 4565P are both active server/workstation parts, but they take very different routes to similar overall results. The recorded benchmark data shows the Intel chip winning 13 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, with the AMD part taking 4. However, the margins tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Xeon w7-2595X edges ahead in every single test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 5530 against 5484 for the EPYC, a lead of just 0.8%. The same 0.8% margin repeats in R15 single-core (780 vs 774), R20 multi-core (23042 vs 22850), R20 single-core (3252 vs 3225), R23 multi-core (54863 vs 54405), and R23 single-core (7745 vs 7680). These are remarkably consistent results. The Intel part wins by the same tiny fraction across the board, which suggests the two chips are essentially neck-and-neck in raw render throughput, with the Xeon holding a slight but repeating advantage.

The PassMark suite is where the gap widens dramatically. The largest delta comes in floating-point math, where the Xeon w7-2595X posts 202906 against the EPYC's 152003. That is a 33.5% lead for Intel, a massive difference for any workload that leans on FPU throughput. Random string sorting also favors Intel heavily: 102230 vs 81318, a 25.7% advantage. Extended instructions show a 20.6% gap (77613 vs 64345), and data compression lands at 14.2% (983046 vs 860786). These are not marginal wins; they are category-level differences.

The EPYC 4565P does strike back in several specific tests. PassMark single-thread is its biggest win: 4712 vs 3723, a 21% margin for AMD. That is a decisive single-core victory, and it shows up again in the duplicate single-thread entry with the same score and delta. Prime number finding goes to AMD at 294 vs 259, an 11.9% lead. Physics simulation also favors the EPYC: 2976 vs 2759, a 7.3% edge. The remaining PassMark tests are closer: integer math goes to Intel by 4.3% (261384 vs 250683), data encryption by 3.1% (49782 vs 48268), and multithread by 1.8% (64628 vs 63474).

Looking at the aggregate data, the Xeon w7-2595X has an average benchmark score of 108663, while the EPYC 4565P sits at 95764. That is a roughly 13% overall gap in favor of Intel. The Xeon also ranks in the 97th percentile against all CPUs, versus the 96th percentile for the EPYC. The nearest rivals for the Intel part include the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9955 (1.8% higher average score) and the Intel Xeon w7-3555 (2.3% lower). For the EPYC, the closest competitor is the AMD EPYC 9175F at just 0.2% higher average score, with the Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 0.3% lower.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. If your workloads are dominated by floating-point math, data compression, extended instruction sets, or random string sorting, the Intel Xeon w7-2595X is the pick. Its 33.5% lead in floating-point math and 25.7% lead in random string sorting are the kind of margins that translate directly into shorter job times. The 26-core, 52-thread configuration gives it the raw parallelism for heavily threaded tasks, and the Cinebench results confirm it trades blows with the EPYC even in workloads that are typically considered AMD-friendly.

The AMD EPYC 4565P is the better choice for single-threaded responsiveness and for specific niche workloads. Its 21% lead in PassMark single-thread is substantial, and the 11.9% advantage in prime number finding suggests certain math kernels favor its architecture. The physics simulation win at 7.3% also indicates that some real-time or iterative workloads may run better on the EPYC. With 16 cores and 32 threads, it is the lighter part, but its 4.30 GHz base clock and 5.70 GHz boost clock are the highest in this comparison.

For most users, the Xeon w7-2595X is the safer recommendation. It wins more tests, wins by larger margins in the heavy compute categories, and its average benchmark score is higher. The EPYC 4565P is a specialist: it wins single-thread and a couple of specific math tests, but it loses the overall throughput battle. If you need maximum single-core performance or those specific AMD-favored workloads, the EPYC makes sense. Otherwise, the Intel part is the data-backed choice.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon w7-2595X is built on Sapphire Rapids, using a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry. It has 26 cores and 52 threads, with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The AMD EPYC 4565P is a Zen 5 design codenamed Grado, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads, running at a much higher 4.30 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost.

The cache layouts diverge as well. Both chips use 80 KB of L1 per core, but the L2 differs: Intel gives 2 MB per core while AMD provides 1 MB per core. The L3 is where AMD takes a different approach: 64 MB shared across the chip, versus Intel's 48.75 MB. The Intel part compensates for the smaller L3 with more per-core L2, which can help in certain access patterns.

The process node gap is significant. Intel's 10 nm is older than TSMC's 4 nm, and that shows in power efficiency. The Xeon w7-2595X has a 250 W TDP, while the EPYC 4565P draws 170 W. The AMD part delivers comparable or better single-thread performance at a lower power envelope, which is a direct result of the more advanced process.

Memory architecture also differs. Both support DDR5, but the Intel part runs quad-channel with 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD part is dual-channel with 89.6 GB/s. This is a major factor in the floating-point and data-heavy wins for Intel. PCIe connectivity favors Intel too: 64 Gen 5 lanes versus 24 for AMD. The AMD part includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 4677, AMD uses Socket AM5. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier; the AMD part does not. The EPYC is from the EPYC 4005 series, while the Xeon is a standalone Xeon W part.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon w7-2595X | AMD EPYC 4565P |

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

| Cores | 26 | 16 |

| Threads | 52 | 32 |

| Base clock | 2.80 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.70 GHz |

| TDP | 250 W | 170 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4677 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Process node | 10 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L2 cache | 2 MB per core | 1 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 48.75 MB | 64 MB shared |

| Memory bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| PCIe lanes | Gen 5, 64 | Gen 5, 24 |

| Integrated graphics | N/A | Radeon Graphics |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Transistors | Not specified | 16,630 million |

| Die size | Not specified | 2x 70.6 mm² |

| Release date | 2024-08-23 | 2025-05-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $2039 | $589 |

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 4565P wins PassMark single-thread with 4712 against the Intel Xeon w7-2595X's 3723, a 21% lead. The Cinebench single-core tests are much closer, with Intel winning each by 0.8% (780 vs 774 in R15, 3252 vs 3225 in R20, 7745 vs 7680 in R23).

Q: How big is the multi-threaded performance gap?

A: The Cinebench multi-core results are nearly identical, with Intel winning by 0.8% in all three versions (5530 vs 5484 in R15, 23042 vs 22850 in R20, 54863 vs 54405 in R23). PassMark multithread also goes to Intel by just 1.8% (64628 vs 63474).

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

A: The Intel Xeon w7-2595X is significantly ahead. It scores 202906 in PassMark floating-point math versus 152003 for the EPYC 4565P, a 33.5% advantage.

Q: What about memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel part has more than 70% higher theoretical bandwidth: 153.6 GB/s with quad-channel DDR5 versus 89.6 GB/s with dual-channel for AMD. This likely contributes to Intel's wins in data-heavy tests like compression and string sorting.

Q: Does the AMD chip have any advantages in power draw?

A: Yes. The EPYC 4565P has a 170 W TDP, while the Xeon w7-2595X draws 250 W. The AMD part achieves its single-thread wins while consuming less power.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-2595X offers 64 Gen 5 lanes, while the AMD EPYC 4565P provides 24 Gen 5 lanes. This matters for systems with many GPUs or NVMe drives.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon w7-2595X dominates in compute-heavy, data-intensive workloads. The 33.5% lead in floating-point math makes it the clear choice for scientific computing, simulation, and any workload that relies on FPU throughput. The 25.7% advantage in random string sorting points to strong performance in data processing and text manipulation tasks. The 20.6% edge in extended instructions suggests good support for AVX-style workloads. Data compression also favors Intel by 14.2%, which matters for database workloads, backup systems, and any pipeline that shuffles large datasets. The quad-channel memory configuration with 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth underpins these wins, as does the larger 26-core, 52-thread count. The 64 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also make it the better fit for systems with multiple accelerators or high-speed storage arrays.

The AMD EPYC 4565P wins where single-thread speed and specific math kernels matter. The 21% lead in PassMark single-thread makes it the better choice for lightly threaded applications, interactive workloads, or anything where per-core responsiveness is critical. The 11.9% advantage in prime number finding suggests it handles certain integer-heavy algorithms more efficiently, possibly due to the higher clock speeds. The 7.3% win in physics simulation indicates that some real-time or iterative workloads may run better on the AMD part. The lower 170 W TDP also makes it an easier fit for power-constrained environments, and the integrated Radeon Graphics means basic display output is available without a discrete GPU. The 64 MB shared L3 cache is larger than Intel's 48.75 MB, which can benefit workloads with large working sets that fit in cache.

The launch MSRP difference is notable: the Intel part lists at $2039, while the AMD part lists at $589. That is a substantial gap, but the data shows the Intel part delivering higher average benchmark performance (108663 vs 95764) and winning the majority of tests. For workloads that match Intel's strengths, the higher price buys meaningfully more throughput. For single-thread-focused or power-sensitive deployments, the AMD part offers competitive performance at a much lower entry point. The choice comes down to whether your workloads align with Intel's FPU and bandwidth advantages or AMD's single-core and efficiency strengths.