AMD EPYC 8224P vs Intel Xeon 6517P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a clear split between these two server processors. The Intel Xeon 6517P dominates the Cinebench suite across the board, while the AMD EPYC 8224P takes decisive victories in several Passmark workloads. Out of 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Intel part wins 13, with the AMD part winning 4.

Starting with Cinebench, the Intel Xeon 6517P wins every single test by a consistent margin of 8.8%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel scores 4268 against the AMD's 3891. The single-core R15 test shows 602 versus 549. Moving to R20, the Intel posts 17787 multi-core and 2511 single-core, while the AMD manages 16214 and 2289 respectively. The R23 results follow the same pattern: 42352 for Intel multi-core versus 38607 for AMD, and 5979 versus 5450 in single-core. This uniformity across all six Cinebench tests indicates a fundamental performance advantage for the Intel chip in rendering and general CPU-bound tasks.

The Passmark suite tells a more nuanced story. The AMD EPYC 8224P wins data compression with a score of 702065, beating the Intel's 653338 by 7.5%. The encryption test shows the largest margin of any benchmark: AMD scores 46742 against Intel's 32385, a 44.3% advantage. Integer math also favors AMD, with 185556 versus 162671, a 14.1% win. Random string sorting goes to AMD as well, 81674 versus 67480, a 21% margin.

The Intel Xeon 6517P counters in other Passmark tests. Extended instructions go to Intel at 51891 versus 43614, a 16% lead. The prime number search shows Intel at 335 versus AMD's 206, a 38.5% gap. Floating point math favors Intel 127497 versus 104698, a 17.9% difference. Physics simulation heavily favors Intel at 4452 versus 3236, a 27.3% lead. The multithread score goes to Intel at 49786 versus 45421, an 8.8% margin. Single-thread performance is the largest Intel win in the Passmark suite: 3311 versus 2339, a 29.4% advantage.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split: the AMD EPYC 8224P has an average benchmark score of 75582, while the Intel Xeon 6517P sits at 72350. The AMD part ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel ranks in the 94th. Interestingly, the AMD's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 with an average score of 75488 (a 0.1% difference), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at 75716 (0.2% behind the EPYC), and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D at 75779 (0.3% behind). The Intel Xeon 6517P's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6724P at 72396 (0.1% behind), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF at 71910 (0.6% ahead of the Xeon), and the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX at 71797 (0.8% ahead).

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: for users whose workloads resemble Cinebench rendering, the Intel Xeon 6517P is the stronger choice. The consistent 8.8% advantage across all six Cinebench tests, combined with wins in physics, floating point, and single-thread performance, makes it the better processor for applications that depend on raw per-core speed and floating-point throughput.

For workloads involving data compression, encryption, integer math, and string sorting, the AMD EPYC 8224P is the better fit. The 44.3% encryption advantage is particularly striking and suggests a meaningful edge for security-related workloads. The 7.5% compression win and 14.1% integer math win indicate that the AMD architecture handles certain data manipulation tasks more efficiently.

Considering the overall average benchmark score, the AMD EPYC 8224P actually scores higher at 75582 compared to the Intel's 72350, a difference of about 4.5%. However, the head-to-head benchmark count strongly favors Intel at 13 wins versus 4. This discrepancy suggests that the AMD part excels in specific high-value tests while losing more numerous but smaller-margin tests.

The launch MSRP for the AMD EPYC 8224P is $855, and the Intel Xeon 6517P has a launch MSRP of $1195. The recorded data does not include any performance-per-dollar analysis, so no conclusion about cost efficiency can be drawn beyond noting the price difference.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 8224P uses the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 17,750 million transistors across a die size of 2x 73 mm². The Intel Xeon 6517P uses the Granite Rapids architecture, also on a 5 nm process but fabricated by Intel. The Intel datasheet does not list transistor count or die size.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has larger per-core caches: 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 72 MB of shared L3. This gives the Intel chip more total cache per core, which likely contributes to its single-thread performance advantage.

Memory architecture diverges significantly. The AMD EPYC 8224P uses six-channel DDR5 memory with a recorded bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s. The Intel Xeon 6517P uses eight-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, nearly double the AMD's memory throughput. This substantial bandwidth difference likely explains some of the Intel's advantage in memory-intensive workloads.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD part provides Gen 5 with 96 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes. The AMD offers slightly more PCIe lanes, which could matter for systems with many expansion cards or NVMe drives.

The AMD EPYC 8224P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6517P has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having 50% more cores, the AMD part loses in most multi-threaded benchmarks, indicating that the Intel's higher clock speeds and per-core efficiency overcome its core count disadvantage.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Core count: AMD has 24 cores, Intel has 16 cores
• Thread count: AMD has 48 threads, Intel has 32 threads
• Base clock: AMD at 2.55 GHz, Intel at 3.20 GHz
• Boost clock: AMD at 3.00 GHz, Intel at 4.20 GHz
• TDP: AMD at 160 W, Intel at 190 W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP6 versus Intel Socket 4710
• Architecture: Zen 4c versus Granite Rapids
• Codename: Siena versus Granite Rapids
• Process node foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Transistor count: 17,750 million versus not listed
• Die size: 2x 73 mm² versus not listed
• L1 cache: 64 KB per core versus 112 KB per core
• L2 cache: 1 MB per core versus 2 MB per core
• L3 cache: 64 MB versus 72 MB
• Memory bus: six-channel versus eight-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 230.4 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s
• PCIe lanes: 96 versus 88
• Integrated graphics: none versus N/A
• Release date: September 2023 versus February 2025
• Launch MSRP: $855 versus $1195
• Part number: 100-000001134 versus SRVU4

The production status for both is Active. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC memory. Both have locked multipliers. The market segment for both is Server/Workstation. The Intel part has a higher TDP of 190 W compared to the AMD's 160 W.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 8224P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6517P has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Intel part in single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Xeon 6517P scores 3311 in Passmark single-thread versus the AMD's 2339, a 29.4% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel scores 5979 versus 5450, an 8.8% lead.

Q: Which processor wins in encryption workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 8224P wins Passmark data encryption with a score of 46742 versus the Intel's 32385, a 44.3% advantage.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The Intel Xeon 6517P has eight-channel DDR5 memory with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD EPYC 8224P has six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 8224P has an average benchmark score of 75582, while the Intel Xeon 6517P has 72350. The AMD ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, and the Intel ranks in the 94th.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The Intel Xeon 6517P has a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 8224P has a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The Intel also has a higher base clock at 3.20 GHz versus 2.55 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 8224P wins in four specific benchmark categories: data compression, data encryption, integer math, and random string sorting. These workloads share a common theme of data manipulation and processing. The 44.3% encryption advantage makes the AMD part particularly suited for environments handling encrypted data, secure communications, or cryptographic operations. The 21% string sorting win suggests strong performance in text processing and database indexing tasks. The 14.1% integer math advantage and 7.5% compression win round out a profile that favors data-centric server workloads.

The Intel Xeon 6517P wins in the remaining 13 benchmarks, covering all Cinebench tests, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, multithread, physics, and single-thread performance. The uniform 8.8% Cinebench advantage across all versions indicates consistent rendering performance. The 38.5% prime number win and 27.3% physics win point to strong mathematical and simulation capabilities. The 29.4% single-thread lead makes it the better choice for applications that rely heavily on per-core performance, such as legacy software or lightly threaded workloads.

For users running virtualization, database services, or general-purpose server applications that depend on integer operations and data compression, the AMD EPYC 8224P presents a compelling profile. For high-performance computing, rendering farms, scientific simulations, or any workload that stresses floating-point math and single-thread speed, the Intel Xeon 6517P is the data-backed choice. The Intel's higher memory bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s compared to 230.4 GB/s also gives it an advantage in memory-bandwidth-hungry applications, even though the AMD has more cores and a higher overall average benchmark score.