AMD EPYC 7663 vs Intel Xeon w9-3595X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Xeon w9-3595X, which wins 13 of the 16 benchmark comparisons. The AMD EPYC 7663 claims the remaining 3 wins, but the margin patterns reveal a clear split in workload character.

The Intel part dominates the Cinebench suite with remarkable consistency. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon w9-3595X scores 8497 against the EPYC's 7032, a 20.8% advantage. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 1199 versus 992, a 20.9% lead. Moving to R20, the multi-core score is 35407 against 29304 (20.8% ahead), and the single-core test shows 4998 versus 4137, again 20.8% ahead. The R23 multi-core result continues the trend: 84304 versus 69773, a 20.8% margin. These consistent deltas across all three Cinebench versions indicate a fundamental per-thread performance advantage that scales proportionally with workload size.

The Passmark suite reveals where each processor excels. The Xeon w9-3595X shows its largest single victory in extended instructions, scoring 142785 against the EPYC's 73719, a massive 93.7% advantage. Floating point math also strongly favors Intel: 379008 versus 251535, a 50.7% lead. Data compression is another Intel win at 1831962 versus 1447020, a 26.6% margin. The multithread score is 99576 versus 82087, 21.3% ahead. Single-thread performance is particularly lopsided: 3720 versus 2606, a 42.7% advantage for Intel.

The AMD EPYC 7663 takes its wins in three specific areas. Data encryption is its strongest showing: 111725 versus 92249, meaning the EPYC leads by 17.4%. Physics simulation is another EPYC strength: 8020 versus 5842, a 27.2% advantage. Prime number finding goes to AMD as well: 676 versus 580, a 14.2% lead.

Two benchmarks are near parity despite Intel winning. Integer math is extremely close: 473507 versus 468096, only a 1.2% difference. Random string sorting shows a 3.5% Intel edge at 190745 versus 184367.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3595X has an average benchmark score of 209881, placing it in the 99th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD EPYC 7663 averages 161973, which puts it in the 98th percentile.

Q: How does the Xeon w9-3595X compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The database shows the Xeon w9-3595X is 3.7% behind the AMD EPYC 9455P, 7.7% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6741P, 8.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9335, and 8.5% ahead of the Intel Xeon 678X.

Q: Where does the EPYC 7663 sit relative to its closest competitors?

A: The EPYC 7663 is essentially tied with the AMD EPYC 9375F, trailing by just 0.3%. It is 1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9355P, 2.2% ahead of the Intel Xeon 676X, and 3.5% behind the AMD EPYC 7C13.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3595X boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7663 boosts to 3.50 GHz. The base clocks are recorded as 2.00 GHz for the Intel part and 2000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz) for the AMD part.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3595X has 60 cores and 120 threads. The AMD EPYC 7663 has 56 cores and 112 threads. Intel has a 4-core and 8-thread advantage.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7663 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon w9-3595X has 112.5 MB of L3 cache. The AMD part has more than double the L3 capacity.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for workloads that depend on raw per-thread speed, floating point math, or extended instruction set performance. The Intel Xeon w9-3595X wins 13 of 16 head-to-head benchmarks and shows its largest margins in exactly those categories. The 42.7% single-thread lead, 50.7% floating point advantage, and 93.7% extended instructions margin make the Intel part the default selection for scientific computing, simulation, and single-threaded legacy applications.

The AMD EPYC 7663 is the better option only in three narrow scenarios: data encryption workloads where it leads by 17.4%, physics simulation where it leads by 27.2%, and prime number finding where it leads by 14.2%. These are meaningful advantages but confined to specific algorithmic patterns. The EPYC also draws interest from its larger 256 MB L3 cache and lower 240 W TDP.

For general-purpose server or workstation workloads that mix compression, multithreading, and standard integer operations, the Intel Xeon w9-3595X is the stronger candidate. Its 21.3% multithread lead and 26.6% compression advantage translate directly to faster database, compilation, and rendering tasks. The 99th percentile ranking versus the EPYC's 98th percentile reinforces this conclusion.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every physical and electrical specification. The Intel Xeon w9-3595X uses Intel Socket 4677, while the AMD EPYC 7663 uses AMD Socket SP3. Intel lists a TDP of 385 W, while AMD lists 240 W. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, the AMD part does not.

Memory support differs by generation: Intel uses DDR5 with eight-channel bus and 307.2 GB/s bandwidth, while AMD uses DDR4 with eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe capability also differs: Intel provides Gen 5 with 112 lanes (CPU only), AMD provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only).

The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $5889, while the AMD part has a launch MSRP of $6366. The release dates are far apart: Intel launched on 2024-08-23, AMD on 2021-03-14. Both are active production parts in the Server/Workstation market segment.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon w9-3595X is built on Sapphire Rapids architecture using a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. It uses a 4x 477 mm² die configuration. The cache layout is per-core: 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, with 112.5 MB of L3 total.

The AMD EPYC 7663 is Zen 3 architecture (codenamed Milan) on a 7 nm process from TSMC. It uses 8x 81 mm² dies with 33,200 million transistors. The cache hierarchy is different: 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a large 256 MB shared L3 pool.

The Intel part has no integrated graphics (N/A), and the AMD part's integrated graphics field is null. Both support ECC memory and target the same market segment. The Intel part has a higher boost clock by 1.30 GHz, while the AMD part uses a smaller process node and a larger shared L3 cache.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon w9-3595X is the clear winner in multi-threaded creative and compute workloads. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core scores all show a 20.8% advantage, meaning rendering, video encoding, and 3D simulation tasks will complete noticeably faster. The 26.6% compression lead makes it the better choice for archiving, database compression, and file-server workloads. The 50.7% floating point advantage and 93.7% extended instructions lead target scientific computing, financial modeling, and cryptography acceleration. The 42.7% single-thread advantage makes it superior for legacy single-threaded applications, interpreters, and lightly threaded server processes.

The AMD EPYC 7663 wins in three specific niches. Data encryption is its strongest category at 17.4% ahead, so SSL termination, VPN gateways, and encrypted storage workloads favor the AMD part. Physics simulation shows a 27.2% advantage, which matters for engineering simulation, game server physics, and particle modeling. Prime number finding leads by 14.2%, relevant for number-theory research and certain hashing algorithms.

For mixed workloads, the Intel part wins integer math by only 1.2% and random string sorting by 3.5%, so those categories are effectively a tie. The multithread score at 21.3% ahead, however, tips general server consolidation and high-core-count virtual machine hosting toward Intel. The AMD part's 256 MB L3 cache and 7 nm process make it energy-efficient per core, but the recorded benchmarks do not show a performance advantage from that cache size in most tests. The Intel Xeon w9-3595X is the database's recommendation for any workload requiring maximum per-thread throughput, while the AMD EPYC 7663 is the choice for encryption-heavy, physics-heavy, or prime-number-focused deployments.