AMD EPYC 7502P vs Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7502P is a decisive winner in every benchmark where both processors were measured, making the comparison less about performance parity and more about workload suitability. The EPYC 7502P dominates in raw computational throughput, while the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 offers a starkly different profile defined by its integrated graphics and low power envelope. The data shows a 6-0 sweep in the head-to-head benchmarks for the AMD part, with performance deltas exceeding 590% in every single test.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7502P wins every single test it shares with the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5. This is not a close contest. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7502P scores 43395 against the Xeon’s 6226, a 597% advantage. Single-core performance also heavily favors AMD, with the EPYC 7502P scoring 6126 versus 879 in Cinebench R23, a 596.9% delta. The EPYC 7502P’s wins are absolute and across the board, covering both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads.

The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 has no benchmark wins in the shared test suite. However, its unique value proposition lies outside those benchmarks. The data indicates it is the only one of the two with integrated graphics, specifically Iris Pro Graphics P580. This makes it a candidate for systems requiring a display output or GPU-accelerated compute without a discrete card. Its 35W TDP also positions it for power-constrained environments, a stark contrast to the EPYC 7502P’s 180W TDP. The Xeon’s wins are not in performance but in its feature set and efficiency profile.

For workloads that scale with core count, the EPYC 7502P is the only choice. Its 32 cores and 64 threads dwarf the Xeon’s 4 cores and 8 threads. The benchmark scores reflect this core disparity precisely. The Xeon’s only potential edge is in legacy or specialized tasks that rely on its specific integrated GPU capabilities, which are not present in the AMD part. The data shows no scenario where the Intel part wins a compute benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 7502P is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, using a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 uses the Skylake architecture, codenamed Skylake-H, on Intel’s 14 nm process. This process node difference is a major factor in their performance and efficiency characteristics. The EPYC 7502P packs 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, while the Xeon has 2,300 million transistors on a much larger 171 mm² die.

Core and cache configurations differ drastically. The EPYC 7502P has 32 cores and 64 threads, with 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, plus a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon E3-1565L v5 has only 4 cores and 8 threads, with 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, and a modest 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC’s cache hierarchy is designed for server-scale data residency, while the Xeon’s is suited for smaller, more latency-sensitive workloads.

Memory and I/O capabilities further separate them. The EPYC 7502P supports DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4, but only on a dual-channel bus, yielding 34.1 GB/s. The EPYC also features PCIe Gen 4, while the Xeon is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Xeon’s integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580 is a feature entirely absent from the EPYC 7502P.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD EPYC 7502P scores 43395, which is 597% higher than the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5’s score of 6226.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 have any advantages in the shared benchmarks?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 7502P wins all six head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 records no wins in the data.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 includes Iris Pro Graphics P580. The AMD EPYC 7502P has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502P supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 supports dual-channel DDR3/DDR4 with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDPs of these processors?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502P has a TDP of 180W, while the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 has a TDP of 35W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7502P | Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 |

|:--- |:--- |:--- |

| Cores | 32 | 4 |

| Threads | 64 | 8 |

| Boost Clock | 3.35 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 35 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | Intel BGA 1440 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Skylake |

| Codename | Rome | Skylake-H |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 3,800 million | 2,300 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 171 mm² |

| L1 Cache (per core) | 96 KB | 64 KB |

| L2 Cache (per core) | 512 KB | 256 KB |

| L3 Cache (shared) | 128 MB | 8 MB |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 34.1 GB/s |

| PCIe Version | Gen 4 | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Iris Pro Graphics P580 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2019-08-06 | 2016-05-30 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unequivocal. The AMD EPYC 7502P leads by a massive margin in every test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7502P scores 4374 versus the Xeon’s 627, a 597.6% advantage. The single-core test shows a 601.1% lead for AMD with a score of 617 versus 88. These deltas are consistent across the board, indicating a fundamental performance gap.

The Cinebench R20 results mirror the R15 pattern. The EPYC 7502P scores 18225 in multi-core, a 597.2% increase over the Xeon’s 2614. In single-core, the EPYC 7502P’s 2572 is 597% higher than the Xeon’s 369. The Cinebench R23 results are equally stark, with the EPYC 7502P scoring 43395 in multi-core (597% ahead) and 6126 in single-core (596.9% ahead) versus the Xeon’s 6226 and 879, respectively.

The largest single-core delta is 601.1% in Cinebench R15, while the multi-core deltas hover around 597%. This shows that the EPYC 7502P’s advantage is not just about core count; its per-core performance is also dramatically superior. The average benchmark score for the EPYC 7502P is 10512, versus 10320 for the Xeon, despite the Xeon having additional PassMark tests that are not shared. The data clearly shows a generational and architectural gap that no single metric can close.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 7502P is the clear choice for any workload that prioritizes raw performance. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, and 128 MB of L3 cache deliver results that are over 500% faster than the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 in all measured scenarios. The data shows the EPYC 7502P is designed for heavy multi-threaded server and workstation tasks, and it excels at them. Its 597% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core reflects its architectural superiority.

The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 is for a niche use case. With a 35W TDP and integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580, it is suited for compact, power-efficient systems where a discrete GPU is not an option. Its performance is not competitive with the EPYC 7502P, but its feature set is entirely different. It is also end-of-life, while the EPYC 7502P is active.

The verdict is simple. If the task is compute-intensive and performance is the priority, the AMD EPYC 7502P wins decisively. If the task requires integrated graphics and minimal power draw, the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 is the only option, but the data shows it cannot compete on raw compute. The EPYC 7502P is the superior processor for all shared benchmark metrics.