AMD EPYC 4584PX vs Intel Xeon w5-3535X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4584PX and Intel Xeon w5-3535X are both active server/workstation processors aimed at similar buyers, but the benchmark data shows they are very different animals. The EPYC wins a decisive 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Xeon takes only two, yet those two wins highlight a fundamental split in workload strengths. This analysis breaks down exactly where each chip dominates and what that means for a builder choosing between them.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the EPYC 4584PX's consistent victory across Cinebench. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the AMD chip wins both multi-core and single-core tests by a uniform delta of 12.1%. For multi-core, the scores are 5193 vs 4634 in R15, 21640 vs 19309 in R20, and 51524 vs 45974 in R23. The single-core deltas are identical at 12.1%, with the EPYC posting 733 vs 654 in R15, 3055 vs 2725 in R20, and 7274 vs 6490 in R23. This is a clean sweep for AMD in rendering and CPU-intensive synthetic loads, with no test where Intel narrows the gap.

The Passmark suite tells a more nuanced story. The EPYC's biggest win is in the find prime numbers test, where it scores 441 versus the Xeon's 269, a massive 63.9% advantage. That test is notoriously sensitive to cache behavior and memory latency, and the AMD chip's architecture clearly excels there. The EPYC also takes data encryption by 24.8% (45902 vs 36784), random string sorting by 19.1% (87690 vs 73618), and physics by 29% (4574 vs 3547). In integer math, the EPYC leads by 8.5% (201919 vs 186158), and in multithread it is 7.4% ahead (58117 vs 54088). Even in data compression, where the Xeon's higher core count might help, the EPYC wins by a slim 1.4% (741648 vs 731388).

The Intel Xeon's two wins are in extended instructions and floating point math. It scores 60183 vs 53774 in extended instructions, a 10.6% margin, and 145924 vs 121460 in floating point math, a 16.8% margin. These are not trivial wins — they point to workloads that leverage AVX-512 or heavy FPU usage, where the Xeon's design pulls ahead despite losing nearly every other test.

Looking at the overall averages, the EPYC 4584PX has an avgBenchmarkScore of 83090, while the Xeon w5-3535X sits at 81115. Both are in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 9135 with a delta of only 0.1%, meaning the 4584PX is statistically tied with that chip. The Xeon's closest rival is the Intel Core i9-14900KS at a 0.0% delta, which tells you the w5-3535X is also right at the pack's median performance for its class.

FAQ

Q: Which chip is faster in Cinebench multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 4584PX wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests by exactly 12.1%. In R23, it scores 51524 against the Xeon's 45974.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon w5-3535X have any benchmark wins?

A: Yes, it wins two Passmark tests: extended instructions (60183 vs 53774, a 10.6% advantage) and floating point math (145924 vs 121460, a 16.8% advantage).

Q: How big is the gap in single-thread performance?

A: The EPYC leads by 12.1% in every Cinebench single-core test. In Passmark single-thread, the margin shrinks to 5.4%, with the EPYC scoring 3795 vs 3602.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The EPYC's 63.9% win in Passmark's find prime numbers test, scoring 441 versus the Xeon's 269.

Q: Are these CPUs in the same performance tier?

A: Both are in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC's avgBenchmarkScore is 83090, while the Xeon's is 81115, a difference of roughly 2.4%.

Q: Which chip has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon w5-3535X has 20 cores and 40 threads, versus the AMD EPYC 4584PX's 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite fewer cores, the EPYC wins most multi-threaded tests.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design schools. The AMD EPYC 4584PX is built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Raphael, using a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 17,840 million transistors across a die size of 2x 71 mm². The Intel Xeon w5-3535X uses Sapphire Rapids architecture, built on Intel's 10 nm process, with a much larger die footprint of 4x 477 mm². Intel does not list a transistor count for this chip.

Cache design is a major differentiator. The EPYC has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3 cache. Critically, it also includes a 1x 64MB 3D V-Cache slice, which is a key reason for its dominance in cache-sensitive tests like find prime numbers. The Xeon has 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, but only 52.5 MB of L3 cache — less than half of the EPYC's total. This smaller L3 pool, with no V-Cache equivalent, explains why the EPYC runs away with memory-latency-bound workloads.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The EPYC uses a dual-channel DDR5 memory bus with 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon uses an eight-channel DDR5 bus with 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth. That is nearly four times the raw memory bandwidth for Intel, yet it does not translate into benchmark wins because the EPYC's cache hierarchy compensates for lower bandwidth in most tests.

PCIe connectivity is another split. The EPYC offers Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon offers Gen 5 with 112 lanes (CPU only). For expandability, the Xeon is the clear choice. The EPYC includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server/workstation parts.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4584PX | Intel Xeon w5-3535X |

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

| Cores | 16 | 20 |

| Threads | 32 | 40 |

| Base clock | 4.20 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.70 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 120 W | 300 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel Socket 4677 |

| Process node | 5 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die size | 2x 71 mm² | 4x 477 mm² |

| L3 cache | 128 MB shared | 52.5 MB |

| 3D V-Cache | 1x 64MB Slice | None |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 307.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 28 lanes | Gen 5, 112 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon Graphics | N/A |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release date | 2024-05-20 | 2024-08-23 |

| Part number | 100-000001481 | SRN76 |

The Xeon has more cores and threads, but the EPYC has substantially higher clocks: a 4.20 GHz base vs 2.90 GHz, and a 5.70 GHz boost vs 4.80 GHz. The TDP difference is stark — 120 W for AMD versus 300 W for Intel. The Xeon is a power-hungry part, while the EPYC is remarkably efficient for a server chip. The Xeon also has an unlocked multiplier, which the EPYC lacks, meaning the Intel part is designed for overclocking. Their release dates are roughly three months apart, with the EPYC launching first.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner for general and most specialized workloads: the AMD EPYC 4584PX wins 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including every Cinebench test and the vast majority of Passmark tests. It does this with 4 fewer cores and 8 fewer threads than the Intel Xeon w5-3535X, relying instead on higher clocks and a much larger cache pool. The EPYC's 12.1% lead across all Cinebench tests is consistent and decisive, and its 63.9% margin in find prime numbers is a signature result that shows how effective the 3D V-Cache is.

The Intel Xeon w5-3535X is not a poor chip — it is in the same 96th percentile and its avgBenchmarkScore of 81115 is respectable. Its wins in extended instructions and floating point math are meaningful for specific scientific and engineering applications. But those two wins come with a 300 W TDP and a 1689 launch MSRP, versus the EPYC's 120 W and 699 launch MSRP. The Xeon also offers 112 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 28, and eight-channel memory versus dual-channel, which matters for systems with many GPUs or high-bandwidth I/O needs. For raw compute per watt and per socket, the EPYC is the better buy. For massive expansion and FPU-heavy code, the Xeon has a place.

Where Each One Wins

Pick the AMD EPYC 4584PX if your workloads are cache-sensitive, latency-bound, or rely heavily on integer math, encryption, or physics simulation. The 63.9% lead in find prime numbers and 24.8% lead in data encryption are not small margins — they indicate a genuine architectural advantage that will show up in real-world jobs like database lookups, compression, and security workloads. The EPYC also wins every Cinebench test, so if you do any 3D rendering or CPU-based content creation, this is the faster chip. Its 120 W TDP makes it dramatically easier to cool and power in a single-socket workstation, and the 5.70 GHz boost clock gives it a single-thread edge that the Xeon cannot match.

Pick the Intel Xeon w5-3535X if your application is built around AVX-512 instructions or heavy floating-point math. The 10.6% win in extended instructions and 16.8% win in floating point math are the only areas where Intel holds a meaningful edge. If you are running finite element analysis, fluid dynamics, or other FPU-heavy code, the Xeon will pull ahead. Its 112 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and eight-channel memory also make it the right choice for a system with multiple accelerators or high-speed storage arrays, where the EPYC's 28 lanes and dual-channel bus would bottleneck. The unlocked multiplier is a bonus for overclockers, though the 300 W TDP means you will need serious cooling. The Xeon has 20 cores and 40 threads, which helps in perfectly parallel workloads that scale linearly — but the benchmark data shows that the EPYC's cache and clocks often overcome that core deficit.