AMD EPYC 4584PX vs Intel Xeon 654 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, if not always dominant, pattern: the Intel Xeon 654 wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 4584PX takes 5. The margins, however, tell the real story. In the Cinebench suite, the Intel part is consistent but narrow. It leads by 1.2% in every single Cinebench test, from R15 multicore (5256 vs 5193) through R23 single-core (7362 vs 7274). That is a uniform, small advantage across both heavily threaded and lightly threaded rendering workloads.

The gap widens dramatically in specific Passmark tests. The biggest win for Intel is floating point math, where the Xeon 654 scores 163093 against 121460 for the EPYC, a 34.3% lead. Physics is another decisive Intel victory: 5596 vs 4574, a 22.3% margin. Extended instructions also favor Intel heavily, 63539 vs 53774, an 18.2% advantage. Data compression goes to Intel by 10.4% (818902 vs 741648), and multithreaded performance is 5.6% ahead (61353 vs 58117). Integer math is closer, with Intel ahead by 2.9% (207745 vs 201919).

The AMD EPYC 4584PX is not without its own wins, and some are notable. The largest is in data encryption: 45902 vs 40675, an 11.4% lead for AMD. Find prime numbers also goes to AMD, 441 vs 390, an 11.6% margin. Random string sorting favors AMD by 5.5% (87690 vs 82828). In single-threaded Passmark, AMD edges out Intel by a hair: 3795 vs 3778, a 0.4% difference. That single-thread result is the only Passmark test where AMD wins by less than 5%, and it is worth remembering the Cinebench single-core tests tell the opposite story, with Intel ahead by 1.2% across R15, R20, and R23.

Looking at the broader database context, the Intel Xeon 654 sits at the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 90717. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 (0.2% higher average score) and the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX (0.5% lower), placing it in extremely fast company. The AMD EPYC 4584PX also sits at the 96th percentile, but its average benchmark score is 83090, roughly 8.4% lower than the Intel part. Its nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 9135 (0.1% higher) and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (0.9% lower), which shows it is competitive within its own tier but not against the Xeon 654's tier.

The data compression result deserves extra attention. Intel's 818902 score is not just a 10.4% win over the EPYC; it is also the single highest benchmark score recorded for either CPU in this comparison. Meanwhile, the EPYC's best showing relative to Intel is in encryption, where it flips the script entirely. These are not workloads where the two chips trade blows; they are workloads where each has a clear architectural strength.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon 654 is the faster processor overall, and it wins in the majority of workloads that matter for heavy compute. If the priority is raw throughput in floating point math, physics simulation, extended instruction sets, or data compression, the Xeon 654 is the pick. Its 34.3% lead in floating point math and 22.3% lead in physics are not minor edges; they are the kind of margins that translate into meaningfully shorter render times or simulation runs.

The AMD EPYC 4584PX is the better choice for workloads centered on data encryption, prime number finding, and random string sorting. Its 11.4% encryption lead and 11.6% prime number lead are substantial, and its 5.5% random string sorting advantage shows it handles certain memory-heavy sorting tasks better. The EPYC also has a slight edge in single-threaded Passmark, though the Cinebench single-core results counter that, so single-thread performance is effectively a wash between the two.

There is also the matter of platform characteristics. The Xeon 654 uses Intel Socket 4710 with eight-channel DDR5 memory and a memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, while the EPYC 4584PX uses AMD Socket AM5 with dual-channel memory and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon's memory bandwidth advantage is enormous on paper, and it likely explains part of the gap in memory-sensitive tests like data compression. The EPYC counters with a larger shared L3 cache of 128 MB versus 72 MB, plus a 64 MB 3D V-Cache slice, which helps in cache-resident workloads.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision comes down to workload profile. The Xeon 654 is the default recommendation for general compute, rendering, floating point, and physics. The EPYC 4584PX is the specialist pick for encryption, prime number work, and certain sorting algorithms, and it does so at a lower TDP of 120 watts versus 200 watts for the Intel part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall benchmark average?

A: The Intel Xeon 654 has an average benchmark score of 90717, while the AMD EPYC 4584PX averages 83090.

Q: How big is the Intel lead in floating point math?

A: The Xeon 654 scores 163093 in Passmark floating point math, which is 34.3% ahead of the EPYC's 121460.

Q: In which tests does the AMD EPYC 4584PX win?

A: The EPYC wins in data encryption (45902 vs 40675), find prime numbers (441 vs 390), random string sorting (87690 vs 82828), and both Passmark single-thread tests (3795 vs 3778).

Q: Do the Cinebench results agree with the Passmark single-thread results?

A: No. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests, the Intel Xeon 654 leads by 1.2% each time. In Passmark single-thread, the AMD EPYC 4584PX leads by 0.4%.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon 654 supports eight-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, while the AMD EPYC 4584PX supports dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s.

Q: How do the two compare in multithreaded Passmark performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 654 scores 61353 in Passmark multithread, which is 5.6% ahead of the EPYC's 58117.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The Intel Xeon 654 has 18 cores and 36 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4584PX has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are very different: the Xeon runs at 3.10 GHz, while the EPYC runs at 4.20 GHz. Boost clocks follow the same pattern: 4.80 GHz for Intel, 5.70 GHz for AMD. TDP is also split, with the Xeon at 200 watts and the EPYC at 120 watts.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Xeon 654 uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 4584PX uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes also differ substantially: the Xeon provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

The cache hierarchy is split differently. The Xeon 654 has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 72 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 4584PX has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3, plus a 64 MB 3D V-Cache slice. The EPYC's total cache capacity is much larger, but the Xeon has more L1 and L2 per core.

Sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5. The Xeon has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC does not. The release dates are also far apart, with the EPYC launching in May 2024 and the Xeon in February 2026. The launch MSRP for the Xeon 654 is $1199, and for the EPYC 4584PX it is $699.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 654 is built on Granite Rapids architecture, which belongs to the Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at Intel's own foundry, with a die size of 2x 598 mm². The AMD EPYC 4584PX uses Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, part of the EPYC 4004 series. It is also on a 5 nm process, but fabricated by TSMC, with a die size of 2x 71 mm² and 17,840 million transistors.

The core designs reflect different philosophies. Intel's Granite Rapids uses larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, while AMD's Zen 4 relies on a much larger shared L3 pool, augmented by a 64 MB 3D V-Cache slice. That V-Cache is a key architectural feature absent from the Intel part, and it helps explain the EPYC's wins in cache-sensitive tasks like random string sorting and prime number finding.

Memory architecture is another fundamental difference. The Xeon 654's eight-channel memory controller provides 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which is roughly five times the EPYC's 83.2 GB/s from its dual-channel controller. This is a massive difference in memory throughput and likely underpins the Xeon's wins in data compression and floating point math, where data movement is critical.

The EPYC's higher base and boost clocks (4.20 GHz and 5.70 GHz) reflect a design tuned for frequency, while the Xeon's lower clocks (3.10 GHz and 4.80 GHz) are offset by more cores, more threads, and far wider memory bandwidth. The TDP difference (200 watts for Intel, 120 watts for AMD) also points to different power and thermal envelopes, with the Xeon drawing more power to feed its wider memory subsystem and additional cores.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 654 is the clear winner in compute-heavy, memory-hungry workloads. Floating point math is its strongest category, with a 34.3% lead. Physics simulation follows at 22.3%, extended instructions at 18.2%, and data compression at 10.4%. Multithreaded performance is 5.6% ahead, and integer math is 2.9% ahead. All Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, also go to Intel by 1.2%. This makes the Xeon the better choice for rendering, scientific computing, physics engines, and any workload that stresses memory bandwidth or vector instruction throughput.

The AMD EPYC 4584PX wins in a narrower but distinct set of tasks. Data encryption is its biggest victory, 11.4% ahead, followed by find prime numbers at 11.6% and random string sorting at 5.5%. Single-threaded Passmark performance is also marginally ahead by 0.4%, though the Cinebench single-core results contradict that, so it is not a consistent single-thread win. The EPYC's larger shared L3 cache and 3D V-Cache make it the better fit for encryption workloads, cryptography, prime number searches, and certain sorting operations that benefit from cache residency.

For mixed workloads, the Xeon's multithread advantage and memory bandwidth edge give it the broader appeal. The EPYC is the specialist, trading overall throughput for wins in specific algorithmic categories and operating at a lower TDP. The data does not suggest the EPYC is a general-purpose replacement for the Xeon; it suggests the EPYC is the right tool when the workload matches its cache and clock speed strengths.