AMD EPYC 4584PX vs Intel Xeon 638 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4584PX and Intel Xeon 638 are both 16-core server processors, but benchmark results show they are far from twins. The AMD part, built on the Zen 4 architecture, claims 14 of 17 head-to-head benchmark victories, while the Intel Xeon 638, based on Granite Rapids, takes three. The EPYC’s overall average benchmark score of 83090 places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon’s 80723 average sits in the 95th percentile. These are close overall scores, but the distribution of wins reveals distinct strengths. The EPYC 4584PX’s nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 9135 with an average score of 82980, a mere 0.1% difference, whereas the Xeon 638’s closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 at 80762, effectively a 0% delta. This page breaks down exactly where each chip dominates.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the EPYC 4584PX’s uniform sweep of every Cinebench test. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core variants, the AMD processor wins by exactly 9.2% each time. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 51524 against the Xeon’s 47202. The single-core R23 result is equally decisive: 7274 versus 6663. This consistent 9.2% margin across all six Cinebench workloads suggests a fundamental clock-speed or IPC advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The EPYC’s 5.70 GHz boost clock versus the Xeon’s 4.80 GHz boost clock aligns with this interpretation.

Outside of Cinebench, the AMD chip continues to build its lead in several PassMark tests. The largest single victory comes in data encryption, where the EPYC scores 45902 against the Xeon’s 36030, a massive 27.4% advantage. This is a clear signal for workloads involving cryptographic operations. Random string sorting also favors AMD heavily, with a score of 87690 versus 74318, an 18% gap. The find prime numbers test shows a 15.7% win for the EPYC (441 versus 381), and integer math results in a 9.2% edge (201919 versus 184884). Even the PassMark multi-thread score, which aggregates overall parallelism, goes to AMD by 4.4%, with scores of 58117 and 55651 respectively. Data compression is closer, but still an AMD win at 2.2% (741648 versus 725818). Finally, the single-thread PassMark score gives the EPYC a 3.4% edge (3795 versus 3670).

The Intel Xeon 638’s three wins, while fewer, are notable for their magnitude. The biggest is in floating-point math, where the Xeon scores 144757 against the EPYC’s 121460, a 16.1% advantage. This is a substantial margin that points to a specialized strength in FP-heavy computation. The Xeon also wins the extended instructions test, scoring 56498 versus 53774, a 4.8% margin. The third win is in the PassMark physics test, where the Xeon edges out the EPYC by 2.8%, scoring 4704 versus 4574. These three wins suggest that while the EPYC dominates general-purpose and integer workloads, the Xeon holds a clear niche in floating-point and certain instruction-set extensions.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly into two usage profiles. The AMD EPYC 4584PX is the better choice for any workload that depends on raw single-thread speed and general integer performance. Its 9.2% lead across every Cinebench iteration, including the single-core tests, makes it the superior pick for database operations, application serving, and other latency-sensitive tasks where each thread’s speed matters. The 27.4% encryption win also positions it strongly for security-focused workloads, such as VPN gateways or encrypted storage servers. The 18% advantage in random string sorting further reinforces its suitability for data processing and sorting-heavy analytics.

The Intel Xeon 638, by contrast, is the specialist for math-intensive computation. The 16.1% lead in floating-point math is the kind of margin that translates directly to scientific simulations, financial modeling, or any workload that relies heavily on FPU throughput. Its win in extended instructions (4.8%) suggests better support for modern SIMD instruction sets, which can accelerate media processing or certain AI inference tasks. The physics test win (2.8%) is smaller but reinforces the pattern of the Xeon being tuned for complex computational physics. For a server dedicated to rendering, scientific computing, or engineering simulation, the Xeon’s wins here are more relevant than the EPYC’s broader but shallower advantages.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 4584PX is built on the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Raphael, part of the EPYC 4004 series. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a die size listed as "2x 71 mm²" and a total of 17,840 million transistors. The Intel Xeon 638 uses the Granite Rapids architecture, part of the Xeon 600 generation (Granite Rapids-WS). It is also on a 5 nm process, but fabricated by Intel itself, with a substantially larger die size of 598 mm². The transistor count for the Xeon is not listed in the data.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The EPYC 4584PX has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a large 128 MB of shared L3 cache. Critically, it includes a 1x 64MB 3D V-Cache slice, which is a key feature for the "PX" designation. The Xeon 638 has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches (112 KB and 2 MB per core, respectively), but its shared L3 is much smaller at 72 MB, and it has no 3D V-Cache. This explains why the EPYC wins in cache-sensitive workloads like data compression and random string sorting, while the Xeon’s smaller L3 is offset by its superior floating-point units.

Another architectural divergence is the integrated graphics. The EPYC 4584PX includes Radeon Graphics, while the Xeon 638 has no integrated graphics (listed as "N/A"). This means the AMD chip can handle basic display output without a discrete GPU, which is a convenience for workstation setups. The Xeon, however, requires a separate graphics card for any display functionality.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are identical at 16 cores and 32 threads each, but almost every other specification differs. The AMD EPYC 4584PX has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, both significantly higher than the Intel Xeon 638’s 3.20 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. This clock advantage is the primary driver of the EPYC’s single-thread performance lead. The thermal design power (TDP) also reflects this: the EPYC is rated at 120 watts, while the Xeon draws 180 watts. The Xeon consumes 60 more watts but still loses on most benchmarks, making the EPYC the more power-efficient performer on the measured tests.

Memory support shows a split. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, but the EPYC uses a dual-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, while the Xeon uses a quad-channel bus with a much higher 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the Xeon’s 2.5x memory bandwidth advantage, the benchmark results do not show it winning memory-intensive tests like data compression, which suggests the EPYC’s larger L3 cache compensates for its narrower memory bus. PCIe connectivity also differs substantially: the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 28 lanes, while the Xeon offers Gen 5 with 80 lanes. This makes the Xeon more suitable for systems requiring many high-speed expansion cards or NVMe drives.

The sockets are entirely incompatible. The EPYC 4584PX uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Xeon 638 uses Intel Socket 4710. The Xeon has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the EPYC’s multiplier is locked, allowing for easier overclocking on the Intel part. The launch MSRP is $699 for the EPYC and $899 for the Xeon. The release dates are also far apart, with the EPYC launching on 2024-05-20 and the Xeon on 2026-02-01.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 4584PX has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Xeon 638’s 4.80 GHz boost clock.

Q: How does the L3 cache compare between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 4584PX has 128 MB of shared L3 cache plus a 1x 64MB 3D V-Cache slice, whereas the Intel Xeon 638 has only 72 MB of shared L3 cache and no 3D V-Cache.

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 4584PX wins with a score of 51524, which is 9.2% higher than the Intel Xeon 638’s score of 47202.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Xeon 638 has a quad-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD EPYC 4584PX has a dual-channel bus with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 638 have integrated graphics?

A: No, the Intel Xeon 638 has no integrated graphics (listed as "N/A"), while the AMD EPYC 4584PX includes Radeon Graphics.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two CPUs?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark data encryption, where the AMD EPYC 4584PX scores 45902 against the Intel Xeon 638’s 36030, a 27.4% advantage for AMD.