AMD EPYC 7642 vs Intel Xeon w9-3575X Comparison

The Intel Xeon w9-3575X and AMD EPYC 7642 are both server and workstation processors, but they come from different design generations. The Xeon w9-3575X is a Sapphire Rapids part released in August 2024, while the EPYC 7642 is a Zen 2 Rome part from August 2019. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear overall winner: the Intel chip wins 14 head-to-head tests and the AMD chip wins 2. The Intel part sits at the 98th percentile of all CPUs in the database with an average benchmark score of 144,323, while the EPYC 7642 sits at the 97th percentile with an average score of 124,006.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin comes in Passmark single-thread performance. The Intel Xeon w9-3575X scores 3,672 against the EPYC's 2,052, a 78.9% advantage. Cinebench single-core results follow the same pattern: R15 shows 1,008 versus 711 (41.8% ahead), and R20 shows 4,200 versus 2,963 (41.7% ahead). The EPYC's lower boost clock of 3.40 GHz against the Intel's 4.80 GHz explains much of this gap.

Multi-threaded workloads also favor Intel. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 70,837 versus 49,975, a 41.7% lead. Passmark multithread shows 83,338 versus 58,795, also 41.7% ahead. The Intel chip wins despite having fewer cores (44 versus 48) and fewer threads (88 versus 96), which points to a substantial per-core efficiency advantage.

Floating-point math is another strong area for Intel: 273,398 versus 181,887, a 50.3% lead. Extended instructions show 109,843 versus 68,841, a 59.6% lead. Prime number finding shows 687 versus 496, a 38.5% lead. Physics simulation shows 6,836 versus 5,098, a 34.1% lead. Random string sorting shows 134,723 versus 114,871, a 17.3% lead. Data compression is close: 1,219,584 versus 1,195,584, only a 2% lead for Intel.

The AMD EPYC 7642 wins two tests. Data encryption shows 86,397 versus 62,258, a 27.9% advantage for AMD. Integer math shows 305,303 versus 298,224, a 2.3% advantage for AMD. These are meaningful wins, particularly encryption, where the EPYC's margin is substantial.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3575X has an average benchmark score of 144,323, compared to 124,006 for the AMD EPYC 7642. The Intel part ranks at the 98th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the EPYC ranks at the 97th percentile.

Q: How does the EPYC 7642 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The EPYC 7642's average score of 124,006 places it 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX, 0.6% behind the Intel Xeon 6730P, and 2.2% behind the AMD EPYC 9354. It sits 3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9384X.

Q: How does the Xeon w9-3575X compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Xeon w9-3575X's average score of 144,323 is 0.3% behind the AMD EPYC 7643P, 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D, 0.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6732P, and 0.9% ahead of the Intel Xeon 674X.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3575X supports DDR5 memory with eight-channel access and a memory bandwidth of 307.2 GB/s. The AMD EPYC 7642 supports DDR4 memory, also eight-channel, with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7642 has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Intel Xeon w9-3575X has 44 cores and 88 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the Intel part wins most multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: Is the Xeon w9-3575X overclockable?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3575X has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD EPYC 7642 does not. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock at 4.80 GHz versus 3.40 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations. The Intel Xeon w9-3575X is built on Sapphire Rapids, Intel's 10 nm process, fabricated by Intel itself. The die is composed of four 477 mm² tiles. The AMD EPYC 7642 is built on Zen 2 (Rome), using TSMC's 7 nm process, with a single 74 mm² die and 3,800 million transistors.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, with 97.5 MB of L3 cache. The AMD part has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a much larger 256 MB shared L3 cache. The larger L3 on the EPYC helps in cache-sensitive workloads, but the benchmark data shows Intel still wins most tests.

Memory architecture also differs. The Intel part uses DDR5 with eight-channel support and 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part uses DDR4 with eight-channel support and 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe support differs as well: the Intel part offers Gen 5 with 112 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD part offers Gen 4.

The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, making it the more flexible choice for tuning. The AMD part is locked. Both support ECC memory and target the server and workstation segment.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on the following fields:

• Cores: 44 (Intel) versus 48 (AMD)
• Threads: 88 (Intel) versus 96 (AMD)
• Base clock: 2.20 GHz (Intel) versus 2.40 GHz (AMD)
• Boost clock: 4.80 GHz (Intel) versus 3.40 GHz (AMD)
• TDP: 340 W (Intel) versus 225 W (AMD)
• Socket: Intel Socket 4677 versus AMD Socket SP3
• Process node: 10 nm (Intel) versus 7 nm (AMD)
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Die size: 4x 477 mm² (Intel) versus 74 mm² (AMD)
• Transistors: not listed for Intel, 3,800 million for AMD
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core (Intel) versus 96 KB per core (AMD)
• L2 cache: 2 MB per core (Intel) versus 512 KB per core (AMD)
• L3 cache: 97.5 MB (Intel) versus 256 MB shared (AMD)
• Memory support: DDR5 (Intel) versus DDR4 (AMD)
• Memory bandwidth: 307.2 GB/s (Intel) versus 204.8 GB/s (AMD)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 112 lanes (Intel) versus Gen 4 (AMD)
• Release date: 2024-08-23 (Intel) versus 2019-08-06 (AMD)
• Launch MSRP: $3,789 (Intel); no launch MSRP recorded for AMD
• Multiplier: unlocked (Intel) versus locked (AMD)

Both processors have eight-channel memory buses, support ECC memory, and are classified as server and workstation parts. Both are listed as active in production.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Xeon w9-3575X as the stronger processor in nearly every measured workload. It wins 14 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench versions, all single-thread tests, and most Passmark workloads. Its average benchmark score of 144,323 places it at the 98th percentile, and it sits within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 7643P, its closest rival. The AMD EPYC 7642, with an average score of 124,006 at the 97th percentile, is a capable part but trails by a wide margin in most tests.

The EPYC 7642 does have advantages. It draws less power (225 W versus 340 W), has more cores and threads, and wins in data encryption and integer math. For workloads that depend heavily on those two areas, the AMD part is the better choice. For everything else, the Intel part is faster, with Cinebench leads of 41.7% and a single-thread lead of 78.9%.

The Intel part also has a higher boost clock (4.80 GHz versus 3.40 GHz), newer memory support (DDR5 versus DDR4), and more PCIe bandwidth (Gen 5 versus Gen 4). The AMD part counters with a larger L3 cache (256 MB versus 97.5 MB) and a smaller process node (7 nm versus 10 nm).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon w9-3575X is the pick for single-threaded performance. Its 78.9% lead in Passmark single-thread and 41.8% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core make it the obvious choice for lightly threaded applications, database queries, and any workload where clock speed matters.

The Intel part also dominates in floating-point math (50.3% ahead), extended instructions (59.6% ahead), and physics simulation (34.1% ahead). These are the workloads that benefit from the newer architecture and higher boost clock. For multi-threaded rendering, the Cinebench results show a consistent 41.7% lead across R15, R20, and R23, so the Intel part is the better choice for content creation and 3D rendering.

The AMD EPYC 7642 wins in data encryption, with a 27.9% advantage, and in integer math, with a 2.3% advantage. For security-focused workloads, cryptographic operations, and integer-heavy processing, the EPYC is the better fit. Its larger L3 cache (256 MB shared) and higher core count (48 versus 44) may also help in specific cache-sensitive or highly parallel integer workloads, though the benchmark data shows Intel still wins most multi-threaded tests.

For power-sensitive deployments, the EPYC 7642's 225 W TDP versus the Intel's 340 W is a significant difference. The AMD part delivers competitive performance in a lower power envelope, which matters in dense server environments. The Intel part, with its unlocked multiplier and newer platform features, is the better choice for a workstation where raw performance is the priority.