CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6731P and AMD EPYC 4584PX are both 96th-percentile server processors, yet they achieve that standing through radically different designs. The Xeon 6731P is a 32-core Granite Rapids part built for throughput, while the EPYC 4584PX is a 16-core Zen 4 chip with a 3D V-Cache slice aimed at latency-sensitive workloads. The benchmark data reveals a clear split: the EPYC wins most tests, but the Xeon dominates in specific math and physics workloads, making the choice highly workload-dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 4584PX takes an early and consistent lead across all Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 5193 against the Xeon’s 4522, a -12.9% delta. The pattern repeats in R20 multicore (21640 vs 18845) and R23 multicore (51524 vs 44871), with the same -12.9% margin. Single-core results are even more lopsided: the EPYC leads by -13% in R15 (733 vs 638) and -12.9% in both R20 (3055 vs 2660) and R23 (7274 vs 6334). This is a sweeping victory for the AMD part across rendering workloads, suggesting its higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz is more impactful than the Intel chip’s 32 cores.

The Passmark suite tells a more nuanced story. The EPYC wins Passmark multithread with 58117 vs 52790 (-9.2%), and it takes data encryption by a -12.7% margin (45902 vs 40087). The EPYC also edges out the Xeon in integer math, scoring 201919 vs 198761, a slim -1.6% delta. The most dramatic single-thread result belongs to the EPYC: it scores 3795 in Passmark single-thread versus the Xeon’s 2107, a massive -44.5% delta that underscores the AMD chip’s per-core advantage.

However, the Intel Xeon 6731P posts decisive wins in several compute-heavy Passmark subtests. Its biggest victory is in floating-point math, where it scores 157330 against the EPYC’s 121460, a 29.5% advantage. The Xeon also leads in physics by a massive 55.3% (7105 vs 4574), and in extended instructions by 22.1% (65656 vs 53774). It wins data compression by 7.8% (799474 vs 741648) and find prime numbers by 22.7% (541 vs 441). Random string sorting is nearly a tie, with the Xeon ahead by just 0.4% (88019 vs 87690). Overall, the EPYC wins 11 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the Xeon’s six wins include some of the most specialized and performance-critical workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The AMD EPYC 4584PX wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests. It scores 5193 in R15, 21640 in R20, and 51524 in R23, each time beating the Intel Xeon 6731P by a consistent -12.9% delta.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The gap is substantial. In Passmark single-thread, the EPYC scores 3795 versus the Xeon’s 2107, a -44.5% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a similar story: 7274 for the EPYC versus 6334 for the Xeon, a -12.9% difference.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6731P win any major benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins six of the 17 head-to-head tests. Its most notable victories are in Passmark physics (7105 vs 4574, a 55.3% lead) and floating-point math (157330 vs 121460, a 29.5% lead).

Q: What about data encryption and compression?

A: The EPYC wins encryption by -12.7% (45902 vs 40087), while the Xeon wins compression by 7.8% (799474 vs 741648). These are split duties, with each chip claiming one of the two related workloads.

Q: Which chip has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 6731P has a higher average benchmark score of 87756, compared to the AMD EPYC 4584PX’s 83090. However, the EPYC’s nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 9135 with a delta of 0.1%, while the Xeon’s closest rival is the Intel Xeon 6736P at -0.1%.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are in the 96th percentile of all CPUs tracked. This means they are both top-tier parts, but they achieve that status through different strengths: the EPYC via single-thread speed and the Xeon via multi-threaded math throughput.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most users: the AMD EPYC 4584PX is the better all-around processor. It wins 11 of 17 benchmarks, including every Cinebench test, all single-thread tests, and key Passmark workloads like multithread, encryption, and integer math. Its 5.70 GHz boost clock and 128 MB of shared L3 cache, plus a 64 MB 3D V-Cache slice, deliver a decisive performance edge in rendering and general compute. The Xeon 6731P, despite having twice the cores (32 vs 16) and threads (64 vs 32), only manages to win in specialized math and physics workloads. For a database, web server, or mixed workload, the EPYC’s consistent wins make it the safer pick.

However, the Intel Xeon 6731P is not without merit. Its 29.5% lead in floating-point math and 55.3% lead in physics suggest it is the superior choice for simulation, scientific computing, or any workload that relies heavily on FPU and physics calculations. The Xeon also wins data compression, which could matter for storage or database compression tasks. If your application is dominated by these specific workloads, the Xeon’s six wins may outweigh the EPYC’s broader but shallower lead. Yet, given the EPYC’s dominance in the Cinebench suite and its -44.5% single-thread advantage, most buyers will find the AMD part delivers better overall performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Intel Xeon 6731P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4584PX has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are 2.50 GHz for the Xeon and 4.20 GHz for the EPYC, with boost clocks of 4.10 GHz and 5.70 GHz respectively. The Xeon has a 245 W TDP, while the EPYC is far more efficient at 120 W. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710, and the EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5. Cache configurations differ: the Xeon has 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, plus 144 MB of shared L3; the EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, plus 128 MB of shared L3 and an additional 64 MB 3D V-Cache slice. Memory support is also different: the Xeon uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 136 for the Xeon versus 28 for the EPYC. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the EPYC includes Radeon Graphics. Launch MSRP is $2700 for the Xeon and $699 for the EPYC.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The Intel Xeon 6731P is built on the Granite Rapids architecture (Granite Rapids-SP) using a 5 nm process from Intel, with a die size of 598 mm². The AMD EPYC 4584PX uses Zen 4 (Raphael) on a 5 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 2x 71 mm². The EPYC’s transistor count is listed at 17,840 million, while the Xeon’s is not provided. The Xeon’s cache hierarchy is larger per core, with 2 MB L2 versus the EPYC’s 1 MB, and its L3 is 144 MB versus the EPYC’s 128 MB. However, the EPYC adds a 64 MB 3D V-Cache slice, which is a key feature for latency reduction. The Xeon is a dual-channel memory part with eight channels, while the EPYC is a dual-channel part, reflecting its smaller core count and lower bandwidth target. The EPYC’s integrated Radeon Graphics is a notable feature absent on the Xeon, which has N/A for integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4584PX wins in all rendering and single-thread scenarios. It takes every Cinebench test, both multi-core and single-core, with a consistent -12.9% delta over the Xeon. It also wins Passmark multithread, data encryption, integer math, and the single-thread tests. This makes it the clear choice for virtualization, web serving, and any workload where per-thread performance and clock speed matter more than raw core count. Its 5.70 GHz boost clock and 3D V-Cache make it particularly suited for latency-sensitive enterprise applications.

The Intel Xeon 6731P wins in specialized compute domains. Its 29.5% lead in floating-point math and 55.3% lead in physics point to strengths in scientific simulation, financial modeling, and physics engines. The 22.1% lead in extended instructions and 22.7% lead in find prime numbers suggest it is better for cryptographic or prime-number-related workloads. Its data compression win (7.8%) and random string sorting win (0.4%) indicate it can handle data-heavy tasks effectively. With 32 cores and 136 PCIe lanes, the Xeon is also better suited for high-bandwidth, multi-GPU or storage-heavy servers, despite its lower per-core speed. The choice hinges on whether your workload is dominated by the EPYC’s general-purpose wins or the Xeon’s specialized math and physics advantages.