AMD EPYC 7642 vs Intel Xeon w7-3555 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7642 and Intel Xeon w7-3555 are two workstation-class processors separated by five years of silicon development, yet the recorded data shows a rivalry that is far closer than their ages suggest. The EPYC 7642, a Zen 2 (Rome) design from the EPYC 7002 series, brings 48 cores and 96 threads to the fight. The Xeon w7-3555, codenamed Sapphire Rapids, counters with 28 cores, 56 threads, and a far more aggressive clock strategy. Across the head-to-head benchmark suite in the database, the Intel chip wins 12 tests to the AMD chip's 5, but the margins tell a more nuanced story: Intel dominates clock-sensitive workloads, while AMD takes several throughput-heavy compute tests by large spreads. Both processors sit in the 97th percentile versus all CPUs in the database, which places each firmly in elite territory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single most lopsided result in the entire matchup is single-threaded performance, and it belongs to the Xeon. In PassMark single-thread testing, the w7-3555 scores 3549 against the EPYC 7642's 2052, a gap of 42.2 percent. That result frames nearly every lightly threaded contest in the suite. Cinebench R23 single-core lands at 8130 for Intel versus 7055 for AMD, and Cinebench R20 single-core reads 3414 versus 2963, both 13.2 percent advantages for the Xeon. The gap widens again at Cinebench R15 single-core, where the w7-3555 posts 819 to the EPYC's 711.

Multi-core rendering follows the same direction. Cinebench R23 multi-core comes in at 57590 for the Xeon against 49975 for the EPYC, an Intel win by 13.2 percent. Cinebench R20 multi-core reads 24187 versus 20989, and Cinebench R15 multi-core is 5804 versus 5037, again with Intel ahead by 13.2 percent in both. PassMark multithread goes to the Xeon as well, 67754 to 58795, and PassMark physics lands at 5802 for Intel against 5098 for AMD, a 12.1 percent Intel margin. Given that the EPYC 7642 has 20 more cores, these are significant results: the w7-3555's higher clocks overcome a substantial parallelism deficit in these tests.

The AMD counterattack comes in raw compute throughput. PassMark integer math is a clear EPYC win, 305303 versus 244642, a 24.8 percent advantage. Data encryption is even more emphatic: 86397 for the EPYC against 48007 for the Xeon, an 80 percent blowout, the largest margin in the entire comparison. Data compression also goes AMD's way at 1195584 versus 966970, a 23.6 percent edge. Prime number searching favors the EPYC 496 to 398, a 24.6 percent gap, and random string sorting lands at 114871 for AMD against 96112 for Intel, a 19.5 percent AMD win.

Two remaining tests split the difference. PassMark extended instructions favors the Xeon, 77619 to 68841, an 11.3 percent gap. PassMark floating point math also goes Intel's way, 190917 versus 181887, though by only 4.7 percent, the closest multi-threaded contest in the set.

Context from the database's rival data sharpens the picture. The EPYC 7642's average benchmark score of 124006 sits within a rounding error of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX (124171, a 0.1 percent delta) and the Intel Xeon 6730P (124756, 0.6 percent ahead). The Xeon w7-3555's average of 106192 places it near the AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX (106413) and the Intel Xeon 6521P (105845), with the Xeon w7-2595X about 2.3 percent above it.

Architecture Differences

These two chips embody opposite philosophies of server silicon. The EPYC 7642 is a chiplet design built on TSMC's 7 nm process, using the Zen 2 (Rome) architecture, with 3800 million transistors and a die size of 74 mm². The Xeon w7-3555 is a monolithic multi-die package built on Intel's 10 nm process under the Sapphire Rapids codename, with a stated die size of 4x 477 mm². The contrast between a small chiplet die and four large tiles is the clearest architectural dividing line here.

Core topology is where the design intent diverges most. AMD spreads its transistor budget across 48 cores with SMT taking the thread count to 96, but clocks are conservative: a 2.40 base and 3.40 boost, with a 225 W TDP. Intel concentrates on 28 cores and 56 threads but pushes clocks hard, with a 2.70 base and a 4.80 boost, at a 325 W TDP. The Xeon's boost clock is 1.4 GHz higher than the EPYC's, and that frequency advantage is precisely what drives the single-threaded results above.

Cache design also differs sharply. The EPYC pairs small per-core caches (96 KB L1, 512 KB L2) with an enormous 256 MB shared L3. The Xeon gives each core a larger 2 MB L2 with 80 KB of L1 and a 75 MB L3. AMD's approach banks on a big shared pool serving many cores; Intel's banks on fast private cache feeding high-frequency cores.

Memory and I/O favor the newer platform. Both are eight-channel with ECC support, but the Xeon runs DDR5 at 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth while the EPYC runs DDR4 at 204.8 GB/s. PCIe is similarly generational: the Xeon offers Gen 5 with 112 CPU-only lanes, against Gen 4 on the EPYC. Platform age shows here, since the EPYC 7642 launched on 2019-08-06 while the w7-3555 arrived on 2024-08-23. Neither chip has integrated graphics, and both have locked multipliers. The Xeon w7-3555 had a launch MSRP of $2339; no comparable figure exists for the EPYC 7642 in the database. Sockets differ too: AMD Socket SP3 versus Intel Socket 4677.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall in the head-to-head suite?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3555 wins 12 of 17 recorded tests, including every Cinebench test and the PassMark multithread, single-thread, physics, floating point math, and extended instructions runs. The AMD EPYC 7642 wins 5 tests, all in integer-heavy or memory-sensitive compute categories.

Q: Which one is better for single-threaded work?

A: The Xeon, decisively. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock translates to a 3549 PassMark single-thread score against the EPYC's 2052, a 42.2 percent lead, and it leads by 13.2 percent in every Cinebench single-core generation recorded.

Q: Does the EPYC's 48-core count win it the multi-core tests?

A: Not in this dataset. The Xeon wins Cinebench R23 multi-core 57590 to 49975 and PassMark multithread 67754 to 58795, both by 13.2 percent, despite having 20 fewer cores. The EPYC's multi-core wins come instead in integer math, encryption, compression, prime finding, and string sorting.

Q: What is the biggest margin in either direction?

A: PassMark data encryption, where the EPYC 7642 scores 86397 versus 48007, an 80 percent advantage. The next largest is the Xeon's 42.2 percent single-thread win.

Q: How do they compare on memory bandwidth and connectivity?

A: The Xeon leads on both: 307.2 GB/s over eight-channel DDR5 versus 204.8 GB/s over eight-channel DDR4, and PCIe Gen 5 with 112 CPU-only lanes versus PCIe Gen 4 on the AMD side.

Q: How does each rank against the broader database?

A: Both sit in the 97th percentile versus all CPUs. The EPYC's average benchmark score of 124006 is roughly 17 percent higher than the Xeon's 106192, reflecting the AMD chip's strength across the wider test set even though it loses most head-to-head matchups here.

Specification Differences

• Cores/Threads: EPYC 7642 has 48 cores and 96 threads; Xeon w7-3555 has 28 cores and 56 threads.
• Clocks: EPYC at 2.40 base / 3.40 boost; Xeon at 2.70 base / 4.80 boost.
• TDP: EPYC at 225 W; Xeon at 325 W.
• Architecture: Zen 2 (Rome) for AMD; Sapphire Rapids for Intel.
• Process: TSMC 7 nm for AMD; Intel 10 nm for Intel.
• Die size: 74 mm² (chiplet) for AMD; 4x 477 mm² for Intel.
• Cache: AMD has 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core with 256 MB shared L3; Intel has 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core with 75 MB L3.
• Memory: DDR4 at 204.8 GB/s for AMD; DDR5 at 307.2 GB/s for Intel. Both eight-channel with ECC.
• PCIe: Gen 4 for AMD; Gen 5 with 112 CPU-only lanes for Intel.
• Socket: AMD Socket SP3; Intel Socket 4677.
• Release: EPYC on 2019-08-06; Xeon on 2024-08-23.
• Launch MSRP: $2339 recorded for the Xeon; none recorded for the EPYC.

Shared traits include Server/Workstation market segmentation, active production status, ECC support, no integrated graphics, and locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon w7-3555 is the pick whenever per-core speed matters. It sweeps every Cinebench test recorded, single- and multi-core alike, and its 42.2 percent single-thread lead makes it the clear choice for applications with limited parallelism: CAD interactivity, DCC tools, code compilation with serial bottlenecks, and any workload that leans on boost clocks. Its 4.80 GHz ceiling also carries it to wins in PassMark physics, extended instructions, and floating point math, the latter a domain where Intel wins despite AMD's core-count advantage. Throw in 112 Gen 5 lanes and DDR5 bandwidth, and the w7-3555 is also the stronger foundation for GPU-dense workstations or high-speed storage arrays.

The EPYC 7642 earns its keep in throughput-bound compute. Its 80 percent encryption lead, 24.8 percent integer math win, and wins in compression, prime finding, and string sorting point to strengths in cryptography, data processing pipelines, and integer-heavy server tasks. Its 204.8 GB/s of DDR4 bandwidth across eight channels, huge 256 MB L3, and 96 threads suit it to virtualization and consolidation where many parallel, moderately clocked threads beat a few fast ones. Its 225 W TDP is also meaningfully lower than the Xeon's 325 W, which matters for dense deployments.

The scoreboard says Intel, 12 tests to 5. The workload profile says it depends: latency-sensitive and clock-bound tasks go to Sapphire Rapids, and bulk integer and cryptographic throughput goes to Rome.