AMD EPYC 7F52 vs Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F52 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 does not win a single test in the head-to-head data.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7F52 scores 35,123 versus 6,226 for the Xeon E3-1565L v5, a delta of -82.3% when measured from the EPYC's perspective. The same -82.3% delta appears across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the Intel chip win in single-core performance?

A: No. The EPYC 7F52 leads in single-core tests as well. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 4,958 versus 879 for the Intel part, again with a -82.3% delta. The Intel Xeon's best single-core result is 369 in Cinebench R20, while the EPYC reaches 2,082.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 has a TDP of 35 watts, while the AMD EPYC 7F52 has a TDP of 240 watts. This is a substantial difference in power envelope, with the Intel part consuming far less.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 has an average benchmark score of 10,320, placing it at the 66th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD EPYC 7F52 has an average score of 10,159, also at the 66th percentile. Despite the EPYC's dominance in Cinebench, their overall averages are nearly identical.

Q: What memory configurations do they support?

A: The Intel Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD EPYC supports DDR4 only, but uses an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7F52 wins every compute benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 3,540 versus 627 for the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5. The single-core R15 result is 499 versus 88. These are not marginal wins; the EPYC is roughly five to six times faster in each test.

The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 does have one practical advantage: its 35-watt TDP. That makes it suitable for thermally constrained environments where the 240-watt EPYC would be impractical. The Intel part also includes integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580, which the EPYC lacks entirely, so systems using the Xeon can operate without a discrete GPU.

However, the EPYC's memory subsystem is in a different class. With eight-channel DDR4 and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth versus dual-channel 34.1 GB/s, the EPYC is built for memory-intensive server workloads. The Intel part's dual-channel bus and lower bandwidth target lighter duty.

For raw throughput, the EPYC is the clear winner. For low-power or GPU-less configurations, the Intel part holds a niche. The data shows no benchmark where the Intel Xeon outperforms the EPYC.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 is built on Skylake-H architecture using Intel's 14 nm process, with 2,300 million transistors on a 171 mm² die. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

The AMD EPYC 7F52 uses Zen 2 architecture (codename Rome) on TSMC's 7 nm node, with 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads, with 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache.

The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 7 nm. The EPYC's smaller node from TSMC allows higher transistor density on a much smaller die. The Intel part's larger die with fewer transistors reflects an older process generation.

Memory controllers differ fundamentally. The Intel Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 over dual channels, while the EPYC supports only DDR4 over eight channels. The EPYC's memory bandwidth advantage — 204.8 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s — is a direct result of this wider bus.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The Intel Xeon provides Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes. The EPYC offers Gen 4, with the fact pack noting "Gen 4" without a lane count. This means the EPYC supports newer, faster interconnect standards.

The Intel part includes integrated graphics (Iris Pro Graphics P580), while the EPYC has no integrated graphics. Both support ECC memory. The Intel Xeon is end-of-life, while the EPYC remains active in production.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 | AMD EPYC 7F52 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 240 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1440 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 256 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4 |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Pro Graphics P580 | None |

| Release Date | 2016-05-30 | 2020-04-13 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Launch MSRP | $417 | Not specified |

The core count difference is the most striking: 4 versus 16. Thread counts follow at 8 versus 32. Clock speeds favor the EPYC, with a 3.50 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost versus 2.50 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. The Intel part's launch MSRP was $417, stated once here per database conventions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains six Cinebench comparisons, and the AMD EPYC 7F52 wins all six. The deltas are consistent at -82.3% or -82.4%, indicating a uniform performance gap across both single-core and multi-core tests.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 3,540 against the Intel Xeon's 627. That is a 5.6x advantage. The single-core R15 test shows 499 versus 88, a 5.7x gap. These are the largest relative differences in the dataset.

Cinebench R20 multi-core continues the pattern: 14,751 for the EPYC versus 2,614 for the Intel part. Single-core R20 shows 2,082 versus 369. The EPYC is roughly 5.6x faster in both.

Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers the highest absolute scores: 35,123 for the EPYC versus 6,226 for the Intel Xeon. Single-core R23 shows 4,958 versus 879. The deltas remain at -82.3% across all R20 and R23 tests, with R15 multi-core at -82.3% and R15 single-core at -82.4%.

Beyond Cinebench, the Intel part has passmark scores in the fact pack: 94,771 in data compression, 2,314 in data encryption, 6,031 in extended instructions, 43 in find prime numbers, 14,547 in floating point math, 23,335 in integer math, 7,325 in multithread, 794 in physics, 11,543 in random string sorting, and 1,970 in single-thread tests. The EPYC has no passmark scores listed, so direct comparison in those workloads is not possible from the data.

The Intel Xeon's nearest rivals by average score include the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N (10,347, -0.3%), Intel Xeon Gold 6312U (10,291, 0.3%), Intel Xeon W-3175X (10,369, -0.5%), and Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 (10,230, 0.9%). The EPYC's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 (10,230, -0.7%), Intel Xeon Gold 6312U (10,291, -1.3%), the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 itself (10,320, -1.6%), and Intel Xeon Gold 6338N (10,347, -1.8%). Both processors sit at the 66th percentile of all CPUs, and their average scores are within 1.6% of each other.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 7F52 is the superior performer in every head-to-head benchmark. With 16 cores, 32 threads, higher clocks, and 256 MB of L3 cache, it delivers roughly 5.6x the Cinebench performance of the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 across all tests. The memory bandwidth advantage — 204.8 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s — makes it the choice for memory-heavy server workloads. The EPYC also supports PCIe Gen 4, a newer standard than the Intel part's Gen 3.

The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 has one clear niche: power-constrained deployments. Its 35-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC's 240 watts. It also includes integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a separate GPU in basic display configurations. For embedded or compact systems where cooling and power are limited, the Intel part is the practical option.

However, for any compute-heavy workload — rendering, virtualization, database processing, or multi-threaded applications — the EPYC 7F52 is the definitive choice. The benchmark data is unambiguous: six wins out of six, with deltas around -82%. The Intel Xeon's average benchmark score of 10,320 is marginally higher than the EPYC's 10,159, but this is driven by passmark tests where the EPYC has no recorded scores. In direct comparison, the EPYC dominates.

The production status tells the story: the Intel Xeon is end-of-life, while the EPYC is active. Builders looking for current hardware should choose the EPYC. Builders maintaining legacy low-power systems may still find the Intel part adequate, provided their workloads fit within its dual-channel memory and 4-core limit. The data does not support any other conclusion.