AMD EPYC 7513 vs Intel Xeon 658X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Xeon 658X, which wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The margin is not subtle in most workloads. In the Cinebench suite, the Intel part leads by a consistent 23.9% across every single test, including both single-core and multi-core variants. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result puts the Xeon 658X at 62,466 points versus 50,431 for the EPYC 7513, while the single-core test shows 8,818 against 7,119. This uniformity across the entire Cinebench family suggests a fundamental performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The Passmark suite tells a similar story with a few notable exceptions. The Xeon 658X dominates in extended instructions with a 49.9% lead, scoring 84,626 versus 56,451. The gap widens further in find prime numbers, where the Intel chip posts 649 against 380, a 70.8% advantage. Floating point math also favors Intel heavily at 210,480 versus 151,713, a 38.7% delta. The single-thread Passmark test shows the largest margin of all: 3,728 versus 2,479, a 50.4% advantage for the Xeon 658X.

The AMD EPYC 7513 does claim three wins, and two of them are worth attention. Data encryption is a clear AMD victory, with 63,628 versus 52,357, a 17.7% margin. Integer math goes to AMD by a narrow 3% (272,145 versus 263,995). Random string sorting is essentially a tie, with AMD ahead by just 1.6% (104,660 versus 103,028). These wins are real but isolated; they do not offset the scale of Intel's dominance elsewhere. The data compression test, often relevant for database and analytics workloads, favors Intel by 13.9% (1,062,062 versus 932,240).

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this imbalance: the Xeon 658X averages 116,060 across all recorded tests, while the EPYC 7513 averages 102,244. Both processors sit at the 97th percentile among all CPUs in the database, but the raw score gap is approximately 13.5%. The nearest rival data for the Intel part shows it trading blows with the AMD EPYC 9255 (0.3% behind), the Intel Xeon 6527P (0.8% ahead), and the Intel Xeon w7-3565X (1.9% behind). The EPYC 7513, by contrast, sits 1.1% behind the AMD EPYC 8324P, 1.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX, and 2.9% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4585PX. The Xeon 658X competes in a higher performance tier overall.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 658X is the clear choice for compute-heavy, single-thread-sensitive, and floating-point-intensive workloads. Its 23.9% lead across all Cinebench versions, both single and multi-core, indicates strong performance in rendering, simulation, and general CPU throughput tasks. The 50.4% single-thread Passmark advantage matters for applications that cannot fully utilize many cores, such as legacy software, certain database query paths, and interactive workloads. The 49.9% lead in extended instructions points to a significant advantage in workloads that leverage modern SIMD instruction sets, including scientific computing, image processing, and cryptography-adjacent math. The 70.8% margin in find prime numbers suggests a major edge in integer-heavy algorithmic workloads that are not purely parallel. The 38.7% floating point math advantage further reinforces the Xeon 658X as the better option for computational science and engineering simulations.

The AMD EPYC 7513 finds its niche in specific data-plane tasks. The 17.7% lead in data encryption is meaningful for workloads involving TLS termination, disk encryption, or secure communication protocols. The integer math win, while narrow at 3%, indicates that certain integer-heavy server tasks may not see the same Intel advantage as floating point ones. Random string sorting at 1.6% ahead is effectively a tie, but it does show that the EPYC 7513 can hold its own in text processing and sorting-heavy pipelines. However, the EPYC 7513 loses the multithread Passmark test by 23.9% despite having 32 cores versus 24, which suggests that raw core count does not translate into throughput advantage in this comparison. The Xeon 658X also leads in Passmark physics by 26.4% and in data compression by 13.9%, meaning the AMD part cannot claim victory in storage-heavy or physics-simulation scenarios either.

For a server buyer, the decision hinges on workload composition. If the workload is dominated by encryption or integer math, the EPYC 7513 has a defensible position. For almost everything else, the Xeon 658X delivers a substantial performance lead, often in the 20% to 50% range.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations and process technologies. The Intel Xeon 658X is built on a 5 nm process at Intel, using the Granite Rapids architecture from the Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) generation. The AMD EPYC 7513 uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference alone explains part of the efficiency and clock speed gap. The Xeon 658X has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the EPYC 7513 runs at 2.60 GHz base and 3.65 GHz boost. The Intel part's boost clock is 1.25 GHz higher, which directly correlates with its single-thread dominance.

Core and thread counts move in opposite directions. The EPYC 7513 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Xeon 658X has 24 cores and 48 threads. Despite having 33% fewer cores, the Intel part wins multi-core tests by 23.9%, which points to vastly higher per-core throughput. The cache hierarchy also differs. The Xeon 658X provides 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 144 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7513 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3. The Intel part doubles the per-core L2 and has 16 MB more L3, which helps feed its higher clock speeds.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The Xeon 658X uses DDR5 with an eight-channel bus and 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, double the 204.8 GB/s of the EPYC 7513, which uses DDR4 on an eight-channel bus. For memory-bandwidth-bound workloads such as large in-memory databases or high-performance computing, the Xeon 658X has a decisive advantage. PCIe support also differs: the Xeon 658X offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC 7513 offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon 658X supports a faster interconnect for storage and accelerators.

The physical design reflects the architectural split. The Xeon 658X uses a die size of 2x 598 mm², while the EPYC 7513 uses a chiplet design with 8x 81 mm² dies and 33,200 million transistors. The EPYC 7513 also has an unlocked multiplier? The data shows multiplierUnlocked is false for the EPYC 7513, while the Xeon 658X has multiplierUnlocked set to true. The Xeon 658X uses Intel Socket 4710, and the EPYC 7513 uses AMD Socket SP3. Both support ECC memory. The Xeon 658X has a TDP of 250 W, while the EPYC 7513 is rated at 200 W. The Xeon 658X has an integrated graphics field of N/A, and the EPYC 7513 has no recorded integrated graphics data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 658X wins the Passmark single-thread test with 3,728 versus 2,479 for the AMD EPYC 7513, a 50.4% advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows the same pattern: 8,818 versus 7,119, a 23.9% lead.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 7513 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, it wins three tests: data encryption (63,628 versus 52,357, a 17.7% lead), integer math (272,145 versus 263,995, a 3% lead), and random string sorting (104,660 versus 103,028, a 1.6% lead).

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core performance?

A: The Xeon 658X leads in every multi-core test despite having 24 cores versus 32. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 62,466 versus 50,431, a 23.9% margin. Passmark multithread shows 73,490 versus 59,331, also a 23.9% lead.

Q: What memory technology does each support?

A: The Intel Xeon 658X supports DDR5 with an eight-channel bus and 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The AMD EPYC 7513 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7513 has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Intel Xeon 658X has 24 cores and 48 threads. Despite fewer cores, the Xeon 658X wins the majority of multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Xeon 658X is fabricated on a 5 nm process at Intel. The EPYC 7513 is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 658X | AMD EPYC 7513 |

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

| Cores | 24 | 32 |

| Threads | 48 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 3.65 GHz |

| TDP | 250 W | 200 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Granite Rapids | Zen 3 |

| Codename | Granite Rapids | Milan |

| Generation | Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) | EPYC (Zen 3 (Milan)) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 2x 598 mm² | 8x 81 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 112 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 144 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2026-02-01 | 2021-03-14 |

| Launch MSRP | $1699 | $2840 |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 33,200 million |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SA2D2 | 100-000000334100-100000334WOF |