CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon 634 and AMD EPYC 8124P are both active server/workstation processors that land at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, yet they achieve that standing through sharply different designs. The Xeon 634 wins the overall benchmark count 12 to 5, but the EPYC 8124P secures decisive victories in several specialized workloads. The data suggests the Xeon 634 is the stronger all-around choice for general compute, single-threaded tasks, and floating-point-heavy applications, while the EPYC 8124P is better suited for encryption, prime-number finding, physics simulation, and string sorting. Choosing between them depends entirely on workload priority.

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon 634 is the default pick for users prioritizing raw single-core performance and consistently higher multi-core scores across mainstream rendering benchmarks. It leads the EPYC 8124P by 4.4% in every Cinebench test, R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core, and extends that edge to PassMark multi-thread performance with a 4.4% delta. For mixed server workloads involving data compression, extended instruction sets, or floating-point math, the Xeon 634 is the safer bet, as it wins those tests by margins ranging from 2% to 29.2%.

The AMD EPYC 8124P is the pick for specialized, data-heavy tasks. It crushes the Xeon 634 in PassMark data encryption by 23.7%, random string sorting by 26.6%, and physics simulation by a massive 33%. Its 16 cores and 32 threads also give it a 4.7% edge in integer math, even though it trails in overall multi-threaded synthetic scores. Workloads that are encryption-bound or involve heavy string manipulation will see meaningful gains on the EPYC 8124P, despite its lower boost clock and older release date.

For a balanced server doing a bit of everything, the Xeon 634’s 12 wins out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks make it the more versatile processor. The EPYC 8124P is a specialist, not a generalist. Neither chip dominates the other by a wide margin in average benchmark score, the Xeon 634 averages 52,974 versus 52,121 for the EPYC, but the distribution of wins is lopsided in favor of Intel.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 634 is built on Granite Rapids architecture using a 5 nm process at Intel’s own foundry, with a die size of 598 mm². It features 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Cache is generous: 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 48 MB of shared L3. It supports quad-channel DDR5 memory with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth and offers 80 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The multiplier is unlocked, and the launch MSRP is $499.

The AMD EPYC 8124P uses Zen 4c architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC, with a smaller die footprint of 2x 73 mm² and 17,750 million transistors. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads, but clocks are lower: 2.45 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. Cache configuration differs sharply: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a larger 64 MB shared L3. Memory support is six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and it provides 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The multiplier is locked. The launch MSRP is $639.

The core count and cache hierarchy favor AMD for parallel throughput and larger working sets, while Intel’s clock speed advantage is stark, 4.60 GHz versus 3.00 GHz boost, a 1.6 GHz gap. The EPYC 8124P uses a denser core design (Zen 4c) on a smaller die, which likely contributes to its lower 125 W TDP versus Intel’s 150 W. Intel’s die is over four times larger by area, suggesting a very different physical implementation despite both being 5 nm parts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon 634’s single-thread dominance is unmistakable. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 3,567 against the EPYC’s 2,271, a 57.1% lead, the largest margin in any test. This carries into Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Xeon 634 posts 4,510 versus 4,321, a 4.4% advantage. The pattern repeats across all Cinebench tests, with the Xeon 634 consistently ahead by 4.4% in both single-core and multi-core variants.

Multi-core rendering shows the same story. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon 634 scores 31,950 versus 30,611, and in R20 multi-core it leads 13,419 to 12,856. PassMark multi-thread follows suit: 37,589 for Intel versus 36,014 for AMD, again a 4.4% delta. The Xeon 634 also wins data compression 477,924 to 468,411 (2% lead) and extended instructions 38,320 to 29,666 (29.2% lead). Floating-point math is another Intel stronghold, with 93,564 versus 72,395, matching that 29.2% margin.

The EPYC 8124P’s wins are concentrated in specific workloads. Data encryption is its biggest victory, 30,743 versus 23,451, a 23.7% swing. Physics simulation shows a 33% lead (3,356 versus 2,250), and random string sorting is 26.6% faster (64,067 versus 47,016). Prime number finding goes to AMD by 11.7% (222 versus 196), and integer math is narrowly AMD’s at 123,513 versus 117,664, a 4.7% edge. These results indicate AMD’s higher core count pays off in parallel integer and memory-intensive tasks, even with lower clocks.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The EPYC 8124P has 4 more cores and 8 more threads (16/32 versus 12/24). Intel’s base clock is 0.25 GHz higher at 2.70 GHz versus 2.45 GHz, and its boost clock is 1.60 GHz higher at 4.60 GHz versus 3.00 GHz. TDP favors AMD at 125 W versus Intel’s 150 W.

Cache layouts are distinct: Intel uses larger per-core L1 (112 KB versus 64 KB) and L2 (2 MB versus 1 MB), but AMD has more shared L3 (64 MB versus 48 MB). Memory channels differ, with AMD offering six channels versus Intel’s four, yielding higher theoretical bandwidth (230.4 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s). PCIe lanes also favor AMD: 96 versus 80, both Gen 5. Sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 4710 versus AMD Socket SP6.

The EPYC 8124P is a 2023 release (September 2023), while the Xeon 634 is dated February 2026. AMD’s part has a locked multiplier; Intel’s is unlocked. The Xeon 634 has a lower launch MSRP of $499 versus $639 for the EPYC 8124P. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC, and neither has integrated graphics. Manufacturing is split: Intel fabs its own chip, while AMD uses TSMC.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 634 wins single-thread tests decisively. It scores 3,567 in PassMark single-thread versus 2,271 for the EPYC 8124P, a 57.1% lead, and also leads in Cinebench R23 single-core by 4.4% (4,510 versus 4,321).

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 8124P better at any major workload?

A: Yes, the EPYC 8124P wins 5 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks. Its largest victories are in physics simulation (33% lead), random string sorting (26.6% lead), and data encryption (23.7% lead). It also wins prime number finding and integer math.

Q: How do their core counts and clocks compare?

A: The EPYC 8124P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Xeon 634 has 12 cores and 24 threads. However, the Xeon 634 has a much higher boost clock at 4.60 GHz versus 3.00 GHz, and a higher base clock of 2.70 GHz versus 2.45 GHz.

Q: Which processor offers more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 8124P provides more bandwidth at 230.4 GB/s via six-channel DDR5, compared to 204.8 GB/s from the Intel Xeon 634’s quad-channel memory bus.

Q: Are there differences in PCIe lane counts?

A: Yes, the EPYC 8124P provides 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the Xeon 634 provides 80. Both are CPU-only lane counts.

Q: What is the overall benchmark win count between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon 634 wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the AMD EPYC 8124P wins 5. Both processors sit at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with average scores of 52,974 and 52,121 respectively.