AMD EPYC 7542 vs Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a striking disparity between these two server processors. Across every recorded Cinebench test, the AMD EPYC 7542 delivers a dominant victory over the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5, with margins that exceed 500 percent in all cases. This is not a close contest by any metric.

The most decisive result comes from Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC 7542 scores 548 against the Xeon's 88, a delta of 522.7 percent. The single-core advantage is consistent across newer test versions: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the AMD part scores 2286 versus 369, and in Cinebench R23 single-core it reaches 5443 against 879. These deltas, 519.5 and 519.2 percent respectively, indicate that the architectural gap is not merely a matter of core count, but also of per-thread efficiency.

Multi-core results amplify the same story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7542 records 3886 points while the Xeon E3-1565L v5 manages only 627, a 519.8 percent advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows 16193 versus 2614, and R23 multi-core shows 38555 versus 6226. The delta percentages remain tightly clustered around 519 percent across every workload, suggesting a nearly uniform performance ratio regardless of the test's intensity or thread scaling.

The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy. The EPYC 7542 holds an average score of 11152, while the Xeon E3-1565L v5 averages 10320. Both processors sit at the 66th percentile among all CPUs in the database, which places them in the same overall tier despite the massive head-to-head deltas. This occurs because the Xeon's additional Passmark workloads, including data compression, encryption, and integer math, pull its average upward relative to its Cinebench results alone.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7542 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark, claiming all 6 victories in the comparison set. Its strengths are most pronounced in rendering and compute-heavy workloads, as demonstrated by the Cinebench suite. The 32-core, 64-thread configuration allows it to sustain massive parallel throughput, and the data shows this translates directly into multi-core scores that are roughly six times higher than the Xeon's.

The Xeon E3-1565L v5 does not win any head-to-head comparison, but it does offer capabilities that the EPYC 7542 lacks. The Intel part includes integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580, which enables on-chip graphics output without a discrete GPU. The EPYC 7542 has no integrated graphics at all. For systems requiring a display output or GPU-accelerated encoding from the CPU itself, the Xeon holds a functional advantage that no Cinebench score captures.

The Xeon also presents a different power envelope. Its TDP is 35 watts, whereas the EPYC 7542 draws 225 watts. This makes the Intel processor suitable for compact, low-power server or workstation builds where heat dissipation and energy consumption take priority over raw compute. The EPYC 7542, by contrast, is designed for socketed SP3 platforms with substantial cooling and power delivery.

For purely computational tasks, the database is unambiguous: the EPYC 7542 outperforms the Xeon E3-1565L v5 in every measured category, from single-threaded response to heavily threaded rendering. For tasks that benefit from integrated graphics, low power draw, or a BGA form factor, the Xeon remains relevant despite its end-of-life production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7542 scores 38555 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 scores 6226. The AMD part leads by 519.3 percent.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 have any advantage in single-core performance?

A: No. The EPYC 7542 wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 2286 against the Xeon's 369, a 519.5 percent advantage.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The EPYC 7542 has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Xeon E3-1565L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which processor supports more memory channels?

A: The EPYC 7542 uses an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon E3-1565L v5 uses a dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 includes integrated graphics, specifically Iris Pro Graphics P580. The AMD EPYC 7542 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor is still in active production?

A: The AMD EPYC 7542 has an active production status. The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 is marked as end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every fundamental specification. The EPYC 7542 operates with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, while the Xeon E3-1565L v5 runs at 2.50 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. Despite the Xeon's higher boost ceiling, the AMD part wins all single-threaded tests.

The core configuration shows the largest gap: 32 cores and 64 threads for the EPYC 7542 versus 4 cores and 8 threads for the Xeon. Cache hierarchies differ accordingly. The EPYC 7542 provides 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3. The Xeon offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3.

Memory support is another differentiator. The EPYC 7542 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon E3-1565L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, with 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities also diverge. The EPYC 7542 features PCIe Gen 4, while the Xeon E3-1565L v5 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The socket types are incompatible: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC 7542, Intel BGA 1440 for the Xeon.

The TDP difference is substantial: 225 watts for the EPYC 7542 versus 35 watts for the Xeon. The Xeon also carries integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580, which the EPYC 7542 lacks. The Xeon was released on May 30, 2016, while the EPYC 7542 arrived on August 6, 2019.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7542 is built on AMD's Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, using a 7 nm process from TSMC. The EPYC 7542 uses the EPYC 7002 series generation, with a part number of 100-000000075. The Xeon E3-1565L v5 uses Intel's Skylake architecture, specifically Skylake-H, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The Xeon belongs to the Xeon E3 generation and carries part number SR2R8.

Transistor counts reflect the manufacturing differences. The EPYC 7542 integrates 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The Xeon E3-1565L v5 contains 2,300 million transistors on a 171 mm² die. The smaller die of the AMD processor, combined with the denser 7 nm process, enables the 32-core configuration within a compact silicon area.

Cache architecture differs not only in size but in layout. The EPYC 7542's 128 MB shared L3 cache is a hallmark of the Zen 2 chiplet design, providing a large pool for multi-threaded workloads. The Xeon's 8 MB shared L3 is typical of the Skylake-H generation, designed for lower core counts and modest power budgets.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 7542 is not multiplier unlocked, and neither is the Xeon E3-1565L v5. Both target the server and workstation market segment, though the Xeon's BGA 1440 socket indicates a soldered, non-upgradeable platform, while the EPYC 7542's SP3 socket allows for socketed installation and replacement.

The EPYC 7542 supports PCIe Gen 4, a generation ahead of the Xeon's PCIe Gen 3. This affects available bandwidth for storage and accelerators. The Xeon compensates with its integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580, which provides a complete graphics solution within the processor package. The EPYC 7542 requires a discrete GPU for any display or compute-graphics workload.

The release timeline also separates these parts by three years. The Xeon E3-1565L v5 launched in May 2016 and is now end-of-life. The EPYC 7542 launched in August 2019 and remains in active production. For system builders selecting a platform today, the EPYC 7542 offers ongoing availability, while the Xeon is limited to existing inventory or used markets.