AMD EPYC 7402P vs Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive outcome: the AMD EPYC 7402P wins all six recorded head-to-head comparisons, with the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 recording zero wins. The margin is consistent and substantial across every test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7402P scores 3749 against the Xeon's 627, a delta of -83.3% for the Intel part. The single-core R15 result shows a similar pattern, with 529 versus 88, again a -83.4% gap. These deltas are not isolated to one workload; they repeat across the entire Cinebench suite.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core score for the AMD processor is 15621, while the Intel processor manages 2614. The single-core R20 result is 2205 for AMD versus 369 for Intel. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score reaches 37195 for the EPYC 7402P, compared to 6226 for the Xeon. The single-core R23 test shows 5251 for AMD and 879 for Intel. Every single one of these comparisons yields the same -83.3% delta, indicating that the performance ratio is almost perfectly constant regardless of the Cinebench version or whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded.

What does this mean in practical terms? The EPYC 7402P is roughly six times faster in each of these render workloads. The consistency of the delta, rather than a variance across tests, suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rather than an architecture-specific optimization. When interpreting the average benchmark scores, the Xeon E3-1565L v5 sits at 10320 with a percentile of 66, while the EPYC 7402P has an average score of 9529 with a percentile of 65. Despite the EPYC winning every head-to-head render test, its average score across a broader benchmark set is slightly lower and its percentile is one point lower. This indicates that the Intel part performs relatively better in other workloads not captured in the head-to-head list, such as the Passmark tests where the Xeon has data and the EPYC does not.

The nearest rivals for each processor further contextualize these numbers. The Xeon E3-1565L v5 sits within a tight band of Intel Xeon parts: the Gold 6338N is -0.3% away, the Gold 6312U is +0.3%, the W-3175X is -0.5%, and the Platinum 8280 is +0.9%. This places the Xeon in a competitive position among older and newer Intel server chips. The EPYC 7402P, by contrast, has nearest rivals that include the Core i7-7700HQ (+0.4%), the Atom x7835RE (+1.1%), the Xeon Platinum 8180 (+1.3%), and the Core i5-1035G1 (-1.6%). The EPYC's average score is effectively comparable to a mobile quad-core and a low-power Atom, which is notable given its 24-core configuration. This suggests that the average benchmark score is heavily influenced by the mix of tests, and the EPYC's lack of Passmark scores pulls its average down relative to its Cinebench dominance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is generational and fundamental. The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 is built on the Skylake-H architecture, using a 14 nm process node manufactured by Intel. It packs 2,300 million transistors on a 171 mm² die. The AMD EPYC 7402P uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It contains 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The transistor count is higher on the AMD part, but the die is smaller due to the denser process node.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The Xeon offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the EPYC provides 24 cores and 48 threads. This sixfold increase in core count is the primary driver behind the Cinebench multi-core deltas. The cache hierarchy is also vastly different. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The EPYC has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The total L3 for the EPYC is explicitly recorded as 128 MB, which is sixteen times larger than the Xeon's L3.

Memory support highlights another major split. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4, running on a dual-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The EPYC supports only DDR4, but uses an eight-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. That is six times the bandwidth of the Intel part. Both processors support ECC memory. PCIe lanes also differ: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The EPYC's PCIe generation is newer and the lane count is eight times higher.

Integrated graphics are present on the Intel part, with Iris Pro Graphics P580, while the AMD processor has none. The Xeon's socket is Intel BGA 1440, and the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. The production statuses differ, with the Xeon marked as end-of-life and the EPYC listed as active. The release dates are separated by over three years, with the Xeon launching in 2016 and the EPYC in 2019. The EPYC is part of the EPYC 7002 series, while the Xeon has no series designation in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How do the two compare in single-core Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 7402P scores 5251, while the Xeon E3-1565L v5 scores 879, a delta of -83.3% for the Intel part.

Q: What is the L3 cache capacity difference?

A: The EPYC 7402P has 128 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon E3-1565L v5 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Iris Pro Graphics P580. The AMD EPYC 7402P has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each processor?

A: The EPYC 7402P has 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR4 bus, while the Xeon E3-1565L v5 has 34.1 GB/s over a dual-channel bus supporting DDR3 and DDR4.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 has an average benchmark score of 10320, compared to the EPYC 7402P's 9529.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification. The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7402P has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. The Intel part has a higher boost clock, but the AMD part has a higher base clock. Thermal design power is drastically different: the Xeon is rated at 35 W, while the EPYC is rated at 180 W. The Xeon's socket is Intel BGA 1440, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. The architecture is Skylake-H versus Zen 2, with codenames Skylake-H and Rome respectively.

The process node is 14 nm for Intel and 7 nm for AMD. The foundry is Intel for the Xeon and TSMC for the EPYC. Transistor counts are 2,300 million versus 3,800 million, and die sizes are 171 mm² versus 74 mm². Cache sizes differ at every level: L1 is 64 KB per core versus 96 KB per core, L2 is 256 KB per core versus 512 KB per core, and L3 is 8 MB shared versus 128 MB shared. Memory support is DDR3 and DDR4 for Intel, but only DDR4 for AMD. The memory bus is dual-channel versus eight-channel, with bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 3 with 16 lanes versus Gen 4 with 128 lanes. Integrated graphics are present only on the Intel part. The market segment is the same for both, Server/Workstation, but production status differs from end-of-life to active. Release dates are 2016 for the Xeon and 2019 for the EPYC. The launch MSRP for the Xeon is $417, and for the EPYC it is $1280. The part numbers are SR2R8 for Intel and 100-000000048 for AMD. Both are multiplier-unlocked false.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7402P wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database. All six Cinebench tests, from R15 to R23, in both single-core and multi-core modes, are won by the AMD part with a consistent -83.3% delta against the Intel Xeon. This makes the EPYC the clear choice for any workload dominated by Cinebench-style rendering, which typically stresses floating-point and multi-threaded execution. The 24-core, 48-thread configuration, combined with 128 MB of L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, provides the raw throughput necessary for such tasks. The EPYC also wins on architectural modernity, with a smaller 7 nm process, PCIe Gen 4, and eight-channel memory support.

The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5, despite losing all head-to-head comparisons, has its own profile of strengths based on the broader benchmark data. Its average benchmark score of 10320 is higher than the EPYC's 9529, and its percentile rank of 66 exceeds the EPYC's 65. The Xeon also has a higher boost clock at 3.50 GHz versus 3.35 GHz, which can benefit lightly threaded tasks. Its integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580 provides a feature the EPYC lacks entirely, useful for systems requiring a display output or GPU acceleration without a discrete card. The Xeon's 35 W TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC's 180 W, making it suitable for power-constrained environments. The Passmark scores for the Xeon, such as 94771 in data compression, 2314 in data encryption, and 23335 in integer math, indicate strong performance in specific integer and encryption workloads, although the EPYC does not have comparable Passmark data in the database to directly contest these.

For use-case selection, the EPYC 7402P is the appropriate choice for multi-threaded server workloads, virtualization with high core counts, memory-bandwidth-intensive applications, and any task where the Cinebench results are representative. The Xeon E3-1565L v5 is better suited for low-power, compact server or workstation deployments where integrated graphics are needed, where single-threaded boost performance matters more than core count, and where the overall average benchmark score suggests a balanced, if older, performer. The recorded data shows no scenario in the head-to-head list where the Xeon wins, so any decision favoring it must rely on the specifications and the non-head-to-head benchmark scores.