AMD EPYC 8124P vs Intel Xeon 6505P Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark record splits this comparison into two clearly defined territories. The Intel Xeon 6505P wins 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 8124P takes 5. The Intel processor's advantages cluster around single-thread performance, rendering workloads, and simulation-style math. The AMD EPYC 8124P counters with wins in encryption, physics simulation, integer math, prime number finding, and string sorting.

For single-thread work, the Xeon 6505P is decisively ahead. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3187 beats the EPYC 8124P's 2271 by a 40.3% margin, the largest single gap in the entire comparison. This advantage carries through every Cinebench single-core test, where the Intel part wins by a consistent 6.7% to 6.8% across R15, R20, and R23. Any workload that spends significant time on a single thread should favor the Intel Xeon 6505P.

Multi-threaded rendering shows the same pattern. The Xeon 6505P wins every Cinebench multi-core test by exactly 6.8%, including the R23 multi-core score of 32687 versus 30611. The PassMark multithread score follows suit at 38456 versus 36014, another 6.8% win. For floating-point math, the Intel part pulls ahead by 28.5% (92992 versus 72395), and for extended instruction sets it leads by 26.5% (37515 versus 29666). These are substantial margins for compute-heavy tasks.

The AMD EPYC 8124P's wins are narrower in most cases. Its largest victory is in data encryption, where it scores 30743 against the Intel part's 24458, a 20.4% lead. Random string sorting goes to AMD by 18.3% (64067 versus 52372). Physics simulation favors AMD by 10.9% (3356 versus 2991). The remaining two wins are slim: integer math at 2.5% (123513 versus 120456) and prime number finding at 2.3% (222 versus 217).

The overall picture: the Xeon 6505P is the stronger all-around performer, especially in rendering and single-thread tasks, while the EPYC 8124P is the specialist for encryption, sorting, and certain integer-heavy workloads.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon 6505P scores 3187 in PassMark single-thread, which is 40.3% higher than the AMD EPYC 8124P's 2271.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon 6505P scores 32687 versus 30611 for the EPYC 8124P, a 6.8% advantage for Intel.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 8124P win any benchmark by a wide margin?

A: Yes, the EPYC 8124P leads by 20.4% in PassMark data encryption (30743 versus 24458) and by 18.3% in random string sorting (64067 versus 52372).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 8124P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6505P has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock differences?

A: The Intel Xeon 6505P boosts to 4.10 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 8124P boosts to 3.00 GHz. The base clocks are 2.20 GHz and 2.45 GHz respectively.

Q: How do the memory channels compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 6505P supports eight-channel memory with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD EPYC 8124P supports six-channel memory with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a remarkably uniform pattern. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Xeon 6505P wins every time with a delta of either 6.7% or 6.8%. The R15 multi-core scores are 3294 versus 3085, the R20 multi-core scores are 13728 versus 12856, and the R23 multi-core scores are 32687 versus 30611. Single-core deltas match: R15 at 464 versus 435, R20 at 1937 versus 1814, and R23 at 4614 versus 4321. The consistency of the 6.8% margin suggests a stable per-clock advantage for the Intel architecture in this workload.

PassMark results break the pattern. The Xeon 6505P's biggest win is in single-thread performance at 3187 versus 2271, a 40.3% lead. Floating-point math also heavily favors Intel at 92992 versus 72395, which is 28.5% higher. Extended instructions show a 26.5% advantage for Intel (37515 versus 29666). Data compression is closer, with Intel ahead by 2.6% (480368 versus 468411). The multithread score rounds out Intel's wins at 6.8% (38456 versus 36014).

The EPYC 8124P's wins are concentrated in specific areas. Data encryption is its strongest result, scoring 30743 against 24458, a 20.4% margin. Random string sorting delivers 64067 versus 52372, an 18.3% gap. Physics simulation goes to AMD by 10.9% (3356 versus 2991). Integer math shows a modest 2.5% lead for AMD (123513 versus 120456), and prime number finding is nearly even at 222 versus 217, a 2.3% delta.

The largest single delta in either direction is the PassMark single-thread score, where the Intel part is 40.3% ahead. The second-largest is floating-point math at 28.5% for Intel, followed by extended instructions at 26.5%. On the AMD side, the largest delta is encryption at 20.4%, then string sorting at 18.3%. These deltas reveal that Intel wins by wider margins overall, while AMD's victories are more evenly spread across a few specialized tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several core specifications. The Intel Xeon 6505P has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD EPYC 8124P has 16 cores and 32 threads. The AMD part offers more parallelism, yet the Intel part wins most multi-threaded tests anyway.

Clock speeds differ notably. The Xeon 6505P has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The EPYC 8124P has a higher base clock of 2.45 GHz but a much lower boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The Intel part's higher boost clock likely explains its single-thread dominance.

Thermal design power favors AMD: the EPYC 8124P is rated at 125 W, while the Xeon 6505P is rated at 150 W. Socket compatibility is split between Intel Socket 4710 and AMD Socket SP6. Memory channels differ as well: Intel supports eight channels with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while AMD supports six channels with 230.4 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. PCIe lanes favor AMD at 96 Gen 5 lanes versus Intel's 88 Gen 5 lanes.

The launch MSRP for the Intel Xeon 6505P is $563. The AMD EPYC 8124P has a launch MSRP of $639. Both are Active in production status and target the Server/Workstation market segment.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon 6505P is built on Granite Rapids, part of the Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP) generation. The AMD EPYC 8124P uses Zen 4c architecture under the codename Siena, belonging to the EPYC 8004 series. Both are manufactured on a 5 nm process, but the foundries differ: Intel fabricates its chip, while TSMC fabricates the AMD part.

Cache layouts differ in structure. The Intel part has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 48 MB shared L3. The AMD part has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. The AMD processor has a larger L3 pool, but the Intel processor has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches. The AMD die consists of 2x 73 mm² chiplets with 17,750 million transistors; the Intel die size and transistor count are not recorded.

Memory bandwidth shows a clear architectural split. Intel's eight-channel DDR5 implementation delivers 409.6 GB/s, which is roughly 78% higher than AMD's six-channel 230.4 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage likely contributes to Intel's wins in data compression and floating-point math, both of which can saturate memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs: the AMD EPYC 8124P provides 96 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon 6505P provides 88 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). The AMD part supports more expansion lanes, which may matter for I/O-heavy server configurations.

The release dates are far apart. The AMD EPYC 8124P launched on 2023-09-17, while the Intel Xeon 6505P launched on 2025-02-23. The Intel part is nearly a year and a half newer, which may explain its stronger single-thread performance despite fewer cores.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear split by workload type. For rendering, simulation, floating-point math, and single-thread tasks, the Intel Xeon 6505P is the stronger choice. It wins every Cinebench test by 6.8%, leads PassMark multithread by 6.8%, and dominates single-thread performance by 40.3%. Its floating-point advantage of 28.5% and extended instruction advantage of 26.5% make it suitable for compute-heavy server workloads.

The AMD EPYC 8124P should be selected for encryption-heavy tasks, string sorting, and physics simulation. Its 20.4% lead in data encryption is substantial, and its 18.3% lead in random string sorting is notable. The physics score advantage of 10.9% also matters for certain simulation workloads. The AMD part additionally offers more cores (16 versus 12), more PCIe lanes (96 versus 88), and a lower TDP (125 W versus 150 W).

For general-purpose server deployments where workloads vary, the Intel Xeon 6505P's 12 out of 17 benchmark wins and its higher average benchmark score of 53701 versus 52121 make it the safer pick. Its consistent margins in multi-core Cinebench tests and the massive single-thread lead outweigh the AMD wins in encryption and sorting. However, if the workload is known to be encryption or string-sorting intensive, the EPYC 8124P offers a measurable advantage that the Intel part cannot match. The data does not support one processor as universally superior; it supports matching the processor to the workload.