AMD EPYC 4585PX vs Intel Xeon 6527P Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 6527P and AMD EPYC 4585PX take very different paths to similar overall performance. The database places both processors at the 97th percentile among all CPUs, but their strengths land in different workloads. The Xeon 6527P wins 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, establishing itself as the dominant multithreaded and throughput-oriented part. The EPYC 4585PX wins three tests, two of which are essentially the same single-threaded PassMark measurement, and the third is a prime-number search workload.

For heavily threaded rendering, the Xeon 6527P is the clear choice. It leads by 4.7% in every Cinebench test, from R15 through R23, in both single-core and multi-core variants. The consistency of that 4.7% delta across all six Cinebench runs suggests a stable architectural advantage rather than workload-specific luck. The Xeon also dominates data compression, encryption, floating-point math, integer math, physics simulation, and random string sorting. Its largest victory comes in random string sorting, where it beats the EPYC by 38.2%. That is a massive gap for a memory-bound sorting workload, and it points to the Xeon's eight-channel memory subsystem as a decisive factor.

The EPYC 4585PX, by contrast, is the pick for lightly threaded integer work and prime-number calculations. It wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4538 against 3539, a 22% advantage. It also wins the find prime numbers test with 547 against 508, a 7.1% edge. These are narrow but real wins in workloads that reward raw clock speed and per-core efficiency. The EPYC's boost clock of 5.70 GHz against the Xeon's 4.20 GHz explains much of this gap.

For buyers deciding between the two, the split is simple. The Xeon 6527P is the throughput king, winning 14 of 17 benchmarks and delivering its biggest margins in memory-heavy and parallel workloads. The EPYC 4585PX is the single-thread specialist, winning the two PassMark single-thread records and the prime-number test. If the workload is rendering, encryption, compression, or physics, the Xeon wins. If the workload is lightly threaded, clock-sensitive, or integer-heavy in a way that favors high boost frequencies, the EPYC wins.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon 6527P wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests. It scores 6378 in R15 multi-core, 26576 in R20 multi-core, and 63278 in R23 multi-core, each time beating the EPYC 4585PX by exactly 4.7%.

Q: How big is the EPYC's single-thread advantage?

A: The AMD EPYC 4585PX scores 4538 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 22% higher than the Xeon 6527P's 3539. This is the largest single benchmark delta in either direction.

Q: Does the Xeon win every benchmark?

A: No. The EPYC 4585PX wins the PassMark single-thread test, the duplicate PassMark singlethread test, and the find prime numbers test. The Xeon wins the remaining 14 benchmarks.

Q: Which processor has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon 6527P has a massive bandwidth advantage. It supports eight-channel DDR5 memory with 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the EPYC 4585PX is dual-channel with 89.6 GB/s. This helps explain the Xeon's 38.2% win in random string sorting.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon 6527P has an average benchmark score of 115190, while the EPYC 4585PX averages 99324. The Xeon's nearest rival in the database is the Intel Xeon 658X at 116060, a 0.7% gap, while the EPYC's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX at 98504, a 0.8% gap.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes. Both are recorded at the 97th percentile among all CPUs in the database, despite their different benchmark distributions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clear pattern: the Xeon 6527P wins the majority of tests, and it wins many of them by wide margins. The Cinebench suite is the most uniform comparison. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Xeon leads by 4.7%. In R15 multi-core, it scores 6378 against 6093. In R15 single-core, it scores 900 against 860. In R20 multi-core, 26576 against 25389. In R20 single-core, 3751 against 3584. In R23 multi-core, 63278 against 60451. In R23 single-core, 8933 against 8534. The fact that the delta is identical in every Cinebench test, regardless of thread count, indicates that the Xeon's advantage here is consistent and architectural.

The PassMark suite shows where the EPYC fights back. In the single-thread test, the EPYC scores 4538 against the Xeon's 3539, a 22% win. The EPYC also wins find prime numbers with 547 against 508, a 7.1% margin. These are the only three wins for the EPYC across the entire comparison, and two of them are the same test recorded under slightly different names.

The Xeon's biggest wins are in memory-heavy workloads. Random string sorting shows a 38.2% gap, with the Xeon at 131597 and the EPYC at 95210. Data encryption shows a 27.8% gap, with the Xeon at 60333 and the EPYC at 47224. Floating-point math shows a 27.3% gap, with the Xeon at 195005 and the EPYC at 153219. Physics simulation shows a 21.6% gap, with the Xeon at 8037 and the EPYC at 6612. Data compression shows a 16.5% gap, with the Xeon at 1030818 and the EPYC at 884774.

Narrower Xeon wins include integer math at 8.2% (268985 against 248563), multithread at 8% (74445 against 68908), and extended instructions at 3.1% (71600 against 69457). These smaller gaps suggest that in pure integer and general instruction workloads, the EPYC's high clock speed keeps it competitive despite lower core and thread counts.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge sharply on core counts, clocks, memory, and platform. The Intel Xeon 6527P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4585PX has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Xeon runs at a base clock of 3.00 GHz and boosts to 4.20 GHz. The EPYC runs at a base clock of 4.30 GHz and boosts to 5.70 GHz. The EPYC's clocks are substantially higher, which explains its single-thread wins.

Thermal design power differs significantly. The Xeon is rated at 255 W, while the EPYC is rated at 170 W. The platforms are entirely different as well. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5. The Xeon supports 88 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the EPYC supports 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Xeon uses eight-channel DDR5 memory with 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC uses dual-channel DDR5 memory with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. The Xeon has an eight-channel advantage that shows up clearly in memory-bound benchmarks.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the EPYC includes Radeon Graphics. The Xeon's die size is 598 mm², while the EPYC uses two dies of 70.6 mm² each. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $2878, and the EPYC has a launch MSRP of $699. Both processors have locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two parts is fundamental. The Intel Xeon 6527P is built on Granite Rapids, part of the Xeon 6 generation, and uses a 5 nm process at Intel's foundry. The AMD EPYC 4585PX is built on Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Grado, part of the EPYC 4005 series, and uses a 4 nm process at TSMC. The EPYC packs 16,630 million transistors into its two dies.

Cache layouts differ in both size and organization. The Xeon has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 144 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 128 MB of L3 cache. The Xeon's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, combined with its larger L3 pool, contribute to its multithreaded dominance. The EPYC compensates with higher clock speeds and a denser process node.

Release timing favors the EPYC. The Xeon was released on 2025-02-23, while the EPYC followed on 2025-05-12. Both are listed as active production parts. The Xeon's part number is SRVNY, and the EPYC's is 100-000001561.

The memory architecture difference deserves emphasis. The Xeon's eight-channel memory bus with 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth is more than four times the EPYC's 89.6 GB/s. This explains why the Xeon wins random string sorting by 38.2% and data encryption by 27.8%. Those workloads are heavily dependent on memory throughput, and the Xeon's platform provides far more of it.

The EPYC's advantage is clock speed and process efficiency. Its 5.70 GHz boost clock against the Xeon's 4.20 GHz gives it a 22% lead in PassMark single-thread performance. Its 170 W TDP against the Xeon's 255 W shows that it delivers this performance at a lower thermal envelope. The Xeon counters with double the threads and a much wider memory path. These are two fundamentally different server platforms aimed at different workload profiles, and the benchmark data reflects exactly that.