AMD EPYC 4584PX vs Intel Xeon 6736P Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a striking split between these two server processors, and the choice depends entirely on whether the workload is latency-bound or throughput-bound. The AMD EPYC 4584PX dominates the Cinebench suite across the board, winning all six tests by a consistent margin of 17.4-17.5%. It also takes the PassMark single-thread test by a massive 46.7%, along with multithread and prime number finding. The Intel Xeon 6736P fights back in seven of the seventeen head-to-head tests, with its largest win being a 42.8% advantage in PassMark physics and a 23.3% edge in floating-point math. The data suggests the AMD part is the better general-purpose compute engine for most applications, while the Intel part excels in specific workloads that leverage its larger core count and memory bandwidth. The EPYC 4584PX also holds a meaningful advantage in raw per-core performance, which shows up across every single-core benchmark. However, the Xeon 6736P's 36 cores versus 16 cores gives it an edge in certain parallel workloads, particularly those that stress floating-point operations or memory access patterns. For buyers prioritizing raw compute density per socket, the AMD EPYC 4584PX appears superior in most measured categories, but the Xeon 6736P's wins in data compression, encryption, and physics suggest it handles specialized tasks better.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two chips is substantial, starting with the core counts and cache hierarchies. The Intel Xeon 6736P packs 36 cores and 72 threads on a 598 mm² die, while the AMD EPYC 4584PX fits 16 cores and 32 threads across two 71 mm² dies. Both use 5 nm process technology, but Intel fabricates its chip in-house while TSMC manufactures the AMD part. The Xeon's L3 cache is 144 MB shared, whereas the EPYC offers 128 MB shared plus a 64 MB 3D V-Cache slice. Per-core cache allocations differ dramatically: the Intel part provides 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, while the AMD part provides 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core. The EPYC's smaller per-core caches are offset by its much higher clock speeds — a 4.20 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost versus the Xeon's 2.00 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost. Memory architecture also diverges sharply: the Xeon supports eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses dual-channel DDR5 at 83.2 GB/s. The Intel chip offers 88 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 28 on the AMD part. The Xeon features no integrated graphics, while the EPYC includes Radeon Graphics. Socket compatibility is completely different: Intel Socket 4710 for the Xeon versus AMD Socket AM5 for the EPYC. The EPYC belongs to the EPYC 4004 series with a Raphael (Zen 4) architecture, while the Xeon is Granite Rapids from the Xeon 6 generation. The EPYC packs 17,840 million transistors, though the Xeon's transistor count is not listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results paint a consistent picture of AMD superiority. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 5,193 versus 4,290 for the Xeon, a 17.4% advantage. Single-core R15 shows 733 versus 605, a 17.5% gap. This pattern repeats exactly in R20 multicore (21,640 vs 17,875) and R23 multicore (51,524 vs 42,561), both at 17.4% deltas. The single-core versions mirror this: R20 at 3,055 vs 2,523 and R23 at 7,274 vs 6,008, again 17.4% gaps. The PassMark single-thread test shows the biggest divergence, with the EPYC scoring 3,795 versus 2,024 — a 46.7% difference. PassMark multithread also favors AMD at 58,117 versus 50,072, a 13.8% edge. The EPYC wins PassMark find prime numbers with 441 versus 392, an 11.1% lead. Intel's counterattacks come in several key areas. PassMark floating-point math shows a decisive Xeon win: 149,770 versus 121,460, a 23.3% margin. PassMark physics is even more lopsided at 6,531 versus 4,574, a 42.8% advantage for Intel. Data compression favors the Xeon at 796,658 versus 741,648, a 7.4% win. Random string sorting goes Intel's way at 103,723 versus 87,690, an 18.3% edge. The remaining Intel wins are narrower: data encryption at 46,236 vs 45,902 (0.7%), extended instructions at 55,563 vs 53,774 (3.3%), and integer math at 206,833 vs 201,919 (2.4%). Notably, the Xeon wins seven tests while the EPYC wins ten.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals why these chips perform so differently. Core count: 36 (Intel) versus 16 (AMD). Thread count: 72 versus 32. Base clock: 2.00 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. Boost clock: 4.10 GHz versus 5.70 GHz. TDP: 205 watts versus 120 watts. Socket: Intel Socket 4710 versus AMD Socket AM5. Process node is identical at 5 nm, but the foundry differs (Intel versus TSMC). Die size: 598 mm² versus 2x 71 mm². L1 cache: 112 KB per core versus 64 KB per core. L2 cache: 2 MB per core versus 1 MB per core. L3 cache: 144 MB shared versus 128 MB shared plus a 1x 64MB V-Cache slice. Memory bus: eight-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 409.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s. PCIe lanes: 88 versus 28, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics: N/A versus Radeon Graphics. Release date: 2025-02-23 versus 2024-05-20. Part number: SRVNW versus 100-000001481. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. Both are active production parts with locked multipliers, targeting the server/workstation segment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 4584PX wins every single-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 7,274 versus 6,008 for the Xeon, a 17.4% lead. The PassMark single-thread test shows an even larger gap: 3,795 versus 2,024, a 46.7% advantage.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The EPYC wins Cinebench R23 multicore with 51,524 versus 42,561, a 17.4% margin. It also wins PassMark multithread at 58,117 versus 50,072, a 13.8% edge. However, the Xeon counters in specific parallel tasks like PassMark physics, where it leads 6,531 versus 4,574 (42.8%).

Q: What explains the Xeon's wins despite having fewer benchmark victories?

A: The Xeon's 36 cores and 144 MB L3 cache, combined with eight-channel memory at 409.6 GB/s, give it advantages in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. It wins floating-point math by 23.3%, random string sorting by 18.3%, and data compression by 7.4%.

Q: Does the EPYC's 3D V-Cache provide a measurable benefit?

A: The EPYC includes a 1x 64MB V-Cache slice on top of its 128 MB shared L3. The benchmark data shows it winning prime number finding by 11.1%, but its cache advantage does not translate into wins in compression or sorting, where the Xeon leads.

Q: Which processor uses less power?

A: The AMD EPYC 4584PX has a 120-watt TDP versus 205 watts for the Intel Xeon 6736P. This is a 85-watt difference, though the EPYC achieves higher benchmark scores in most tests while consuming less power.

Q: How do these processors compare to their closest rivals?

A: The Xeon 6736P sits within 0.3% of the Intel Xeon w7-2575X and 3.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7F72. The EPYC 4584PX is 0.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9135 and 1.8% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7443P. Both chips rank in the 96th percentile of all CPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6736P wins decisively in floating-point math, physics simulation, data compression, and random string sorting. These are workloads that benefit from the Xeon's 36 cores, 144 MB L3 cache, and 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. The 42.8% physics win and 23.3% floating-point win suggest the Xeon handles scientific computing and simulation tasks particularly well. The 18.3% sorting advantage and 7.4% compression win point to database and data-processing workloads where memory bandwidth matters more than raw clock speed. The Xeon also edges out the EPYC in integer math (2.4%), extended instructions (3.3%), and data encryption (0.7%), making it a balanced choice for mixed enterprise workloads. The AMD EPYC 4584PX wins every Cinebench test by 17.4%, suggesting its higher clock speeds (4.20 GHz base, 5.70 GHz boost) and 3D V-Cache provide a consistent advantage in rendering and 3D workloads. The 46.7% single-thread win makes it the clear choice for latency-sensitive applications and lightly threaded tasks. Its 13.8% multithread win over a processor with more than double the cores is remarkable, indicating the EPYC's per-core efficiency is exceptional. The prime number finding win (11.1%) suggests the EPYC handles encryption and cryptographic workloads well. For users running Cinebench-style rendering, single-threaded applications, or workloads that scale with clock speed, the EPYC 4584PX is the data-supported choice. For floating-point-heavy simulations, physics calculations, or memory-bandwidth-bound data processing, the Xeon 6736P's benchmark wins make it the better fit.