AMD EPYC 7552 vs Intel Xeon 6315P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints an unusually one-sided picture. Across every recorded Cinebench test, the AMD EPYC 7552 wins outright, and the margins are massive. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7552 scores 48,801 against the Intel Xeon 6315P's 10,134, a 79.2% advantage. That is not a narrow lead; it is a full tier of performance separation. The same 79.2% gap appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the AMD part posts 20,496 versus 4,256, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it scores 4,919 against 1,021.

Single-core results follow the same pattern, though the percentage deltas are nearly identical. The EPYC 7552 leads by 79.3% in Cinebench R15 single-core (694 versus 144) and by 79.3% in R20 single-core (2,893 versus 600). In R23 single-core, the AMD chip scores 6,889 against 1,430, a 79.2% gap. The consistency of these percentages across every test suggests the difference is structural rather than workload-specific. When a processor leads by roughly the same margin in both single-threaded and multi-threaded tests, it points to a fundamental per-core and core-count advantage, not an optimization quirk.

The Intel Xeon 6315P records zero wins in the head-to-head benchmark set. The database shows 0 wins for the Intel part and 6 wins for the AMD part. No Cinebench test favors the Xeon, and there are no recorded wins for it in any other benchmark category in this comparison. That said, the Intel chip does hold a meaningful advantage in its own benchmark profile when compared to the broader database, with an average benchmark score of 14,574 and a 69th percentile ranking among all CPUs. The EPYC 7552 sits at 14,115 average and the 68th percentile. In other words, the AMD part dominates this direct comparison, but the Intel part is not a weak processor in absolute terms; it is simply outclassed by a 48-core server chip.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: if the workload is heavily threaded and the system can accommodate a 200W TDP processor, the AMD EPYC 7552 is the clear choice. It wins every recorded benchmark by roughly 79%, and its 48 cores and 96 threads provide a scale of parallelism that the 4-core Intel Xeon 6315P cannot approach. The EPYC 7552's 192 MB of shared L3 cache and eight-channel DDR4 memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth further reinforce its position as a server-class part built for throughput-heavy tasks.

The Intel Xeon 6315P, by contrast, is a 4-core, 4-thread part with a 55W TDP and a 4.70 GHz boost clock. It is a low-power server or workstation processor, and its strengths lie in efficiency and single-core burst performance, not raw throughput. The database shows it sitting at the 69th percentile overall, which is respectable for a low-core-count chip, but it cannot compete with the EPYC 7552 in any Cinebench metric. For users who need maximum multi-core performance, the EPYC 7552 is the only rational pick from this data.

However, the verdict is not purely about speed. The EPYC 7552 has a launch MSRP of $4025, while the Xeon 6315P has a launch MSRP of $213. The database does not include pricing in its performance evaluation, but the difference in launch MSRP is substantial and worth noting once. If the workload fits within four cores and the power budget is tight, the Xeon's 55W TDP and modern Raptor Lake architecture make it a sensible low-power option. But for any workload that scales beyond a handful of threads, the EPYC 7552's 79% lead in every recorded test is decisive.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and different manufacturing generations. The Intel Xeon 6315P is built on Raptor Lake, specifically the Raptor Lake-R refresh, and belongs to the Xeon 6 generation. It uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 163 mm². The AMD EPYC 7552 is a Zen 2 part from the EPYC 7002 series, codenamed Rome, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 74 mm² and 3,800 million transistors. The process node difference is notable: 7 nm versus 10 nm gives the AMD part a density and efficiency advantage at the silicon level, even before considering core counts.

Core configurations could hardly be more different. The Xeon 6315P has 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The EPYC 7552 has 48 cores and 96 threads, with SMT enabled. That is a 12x difference in core count and a 24x difference in thread count. Clock speeds tell the other side of the story: the Intel part has a 2.80 GHz base clock and a 4.70 GHz boost clock, while the AMD part runs at 2.20 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. The Xeon's higher boost clock reflects its focus on latency-sensitive single-threaded work, even though the EPYC still wins single-core benchmarks by a wide margin in this data set.

Cache hierarchies also differ sharply. The Intel Xeon 6315P has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The AMD EPYC 7552 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 192 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's 192 MB L3 is 16x larger than the Xeon's 12 MB, which is critical for server workloads with large working sets. Memory support diverges as well: the Xeon supports DDR4 and DDR5 through a dual-channel memory bus, while the EPYC supports DDR4 through an eight-channel bus with a recorded 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC also offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), compared to the Xeon's 16 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server parts.

The production status for both is Active. The Intel part was released on 2025-02-23, while the AMD part was released on 2019-08-06. The Xeon 6315P uses Intel Socket 1700; the EPYC 7552 uses AMD Socket SP3. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, and the EPYC has no recorded integrated graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7552 wins every multi-core Cinebench test by 79.2%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 48,801 versus 10,134 for the Intel Xeon 6315P.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6315P win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data records 0 wins for the Intel part and 6 wins for the AMD part across all Cinebench tests.

Q: Which chip has higher clock speeds?

A: The Intel Xeon 6315P has a higher boost clock at 4.70 GHz versus 3.30 GHz for the AMD EPYC 7552. The Intel part also has a higher base clock at 2.80 GHz versus 2.20 GHz.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 6315P has 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD EPYC 7552 has 48 cores and 96 threads. The EPYC also has a much larger 192 MB shared L3 cache versus 12 MB on the Xeon.

Q: What memory configurations do they support?

A: The Intel Xeon 6315P supports DDR4 and DDR5 through a dual-channel memory bus. The AMD EPYC 7552 supports DDR4 through an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: Yes. The database lists both the Intel Xeon 6315P and the AMD EPYC 7552 as Active in production status.

Q: Which chip has better single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7552 wins all single-core Cinebench tests, leading by 79.3% in R15 and R20 single-core and by 79.2% in R23 single-core, despite the Intel part's higher boost clock.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7552 wins in every recorded benchmark category, but the practical interpretation goes beyond the raw scores. With 48 cores and 96 threads, the EPYC 7552 is built for parallel throughput. Database queries, virtualization hosts, scientific computing, and any workload that can spawn dozens of threads will benefit from its core count and its 192 MB shared L3 cache. The eight-channel DDR4 memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth further supports memory-intensive server tasks. The EPYC 7552 also provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, which matters for systems with many NVMe drives, GPUs, or network adapters. Its 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs, despite being a 2019 design, shows how much raw compute it still delivers.

The Intel Xeon 6315P wins no head-to-head benchmarks, but it has its own niche. Its 55W TDP makes it suitable for power-constrained or compact server and workstation builds where a 200W EPYC would be impractical. The 4.70 GHz boost clock gives it strong burst performance for lightly threaded tasks, and its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory offers flexibility in platform choice. The 10 nm Raptor Lake architecture, released in 2025, is a much newer design than the 2019 Zen 2 part. The Xeon also has a 69th percentile ranking, slightly above the EPYC's 68th, which reflects its efficiency in the broader CPU landscape. For workloads that fit in four threads and require minimal power draw, the Xeon 6315P is the more practical option, even though it loses every benchmark in this direct comparison.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Intel Xeon 6315P has 4 cores and 4 threads; the AMD EPYC 7552 has 48 cores and 96 threads. Clock speeds: the Xeon runs at 2.80 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost, while the EPYC runs at 2.20 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. TDP is 55W for the Xeon and 200W for the EPYC. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1700; the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. The Xeon is built on Raptor Lake architecture with a 10 nm process at Intel; the EPYC is Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Xeon has a die size of 163 mm²; the EPYC has a die size of 74 mm² with 3,800 million transistors.

Cache differences are pronounced: the Xeon has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3; the EPYC has 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 192 MB shared L3. Memory support: the Xeon supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus; the EPYC supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe: the Xeon has Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only); the EPYC has Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Both support ECC memory. Release dates: the Xeon launched on 2025-02-23; the EPYC launched on 2019-08-06. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $213; the EPYC has a launch MSRP of $4025. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon has no integrated graphics; the EPYC has no recorded integrated graphics.