AMD EPYC 8324P vs Intel Xeon w7-2595X Comparison

The Intel Xeon w7-2595X and AMD EPYC 8324P are both high-core-count server/workstation processors, and their benchmark scores place them within a tight cluster of rivals. The Intel part holds an average benchmark score of 108,663, while the AMD part scores 103,329, a difference of roughly 5.2%. Both achieve a 97th percentile ranking against all CPUs, but the head-to-head results show a clear split in workload character: the Intel wins 13 of the 17 direct comparisons, while the AMD takes 4. The data reveals that the w7-2595X dominates in raw throughput and single-threaded execution, whereas the EPYC 8324P counters with superior performance in specific parallel and memory-sensitive tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive margin in the entire comparison belongs to the Intel in the PassMark single-thread test, scoring 3,723 against the AMD’s 2,367, a 57.3% advantage. This is not a marginal edge; it is a fundamental difference in per-core capability. The same pattern appears in Cinebench single-core runs: the Intel leads by 13% in R15, R20, and R23, with scores of 780, 3,252, and 7,745 versus 690, 2,879, and 6,855. For any workload that cannot fully parallelize, the Intel part is the clear choice.

In multi-threaded rendering, the Intel consistently holds a 13% lead across all three Cinebench versions. The R23 multicore score of 54,863 for the Intel versus 48,557 for the AMD shows a substantial gap. Interestingly, the Intel achieves this despite having fewer cores—26 versus 32—and fewer threads—52 versus 64. The PassMark multithread test confirms the trend with a 13.1% lead (64,628 versus 57,127). The Intel also wins in floating-point math by a massive 46% (202,906 versus 139,022) and in extended instructions by 28.7% (77,613 versus 60,304), indicating strong vector and math processing capabilities.

However, the AMD EPYC 8324P posts significant counter-wins. The largest is in PassMark physics, where it scores 4,637 versus the Intel’s 2,759, a 40.5% advantage. It also leads in prime number finding by 25.4% (347 versus 259) and in data encryption by 21.2% (63,195 versus 49,782). The AMD edges out the Intel in random string sorting by 10% (113,610 versus 102,230). These are not trivial workloads; they represent specific computational patterns where the AMD architecture is more efficient. The data compression test is nearly a dead heat, with the Intel winning by only 0.2% (983,046 versus 980,907), and integer math is close as well, with the Intel ahead by just 5.2% (261,384 versus 248,447).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon w7-2595X is the winner for any task that relies on high clock speeds and strong single-thread execution. Its boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus the AMD’s 3.00 GHz explains the 57.3% single-thread lead. This translates directly to better performance in lightly threaded applications, legacy software, and interactive workloads. The 46% lead in floating-point math suggests a strong advantage in scientific computing, simulations, and financial modeling. The 28.7% lead in extended instructions points to superior SIMD processing for media encoding, cryptography, and engineering analysis. For Cinebench rendering, the Intel’s consistent 13% lead across all versions indicates a robust all-around multi-core performer that excels in content creation.

The AMD EPYC 8324P wins in specific areas where its architecture shines. The 40.5% lead in physics is notable, suggesting better performance in physics simulation and collision detection. The 25.4% lead in prime number finding indicates strength in integer-heavy algorithmic workloads. The 21.2% lead in data encryption is a clear win for security and VPN applications. The 10% lead in random string sorting points to superior memory access patterns for sorting and database-like operations. These wins, while fewer in number, are significant in magnitude and target distinct use cases. For example, a server handling encrypted traffic would see a meaningful performance boost with the AMD part.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon w7-2595X is significantly faster, winning the PassMark single-thread test by 57.3% (3,723 versus 2,367) and every Cinebench single-core test by 13%.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 8324P win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins 4 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons: physics (by 40.5%), prime number finding (by 25.4%), data encryption (by 21.2%), and random string sorting (by 10%).

Q: How do they compare in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel leads in all Cinebench multicore tests by 13%. In R23, the Intel scores 54,863 versus the AMD’s 48,557.

Q: What is the core and thread difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 8324P has more cores and threads, with 32 cores and 64 threads, compared to the Intel’s 26 cores and 52 threads.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-2595X has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 8324P has a boost clock of 3.00 GHz.

Q: How close is the overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel has an average score of 108,663, which is about 5.2% higher than the AMD’s 103,329. Both rank in the 97th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Intel Xeon w7-2595X has 26 cores and 52 threads, while the AMD EPYC 8324P has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Intel has a much higher boost clock at 4.80 GHz versus 3.00 GHz, though its base clock is slightly higher at 2.80 GHz versus 2.65 GHz. The thermal design power (TDP) is higher for the Intel at 250 W, compared to the AMD’s 180 W.

Memory support differs significantly: the Intel uses a quad-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, while the AMD uses a six-channel bus with a higher bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also diverges, with the Intel offering 64 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) and the AMD offering 96 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). The Intel is multiplier-unlocked, while the AMD is locked. The Intel uses Intel Socket 4677, and the AMD uses AMD Socket SP6. The launch MSRP for the Intel is $2039, and for the AMD it is $1895.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The Intel is built on a 10 nm process at Intel foundry, codenamed Sapphire Rapids. The AMD uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, codenamed Siena, based on the Zen 4c architecture. The AMD’s process node is more advanced, allowing for a smaller die size of 4x 73 mm² and a transistor count of 35,500 million. The Intel does not have listed transistor or die size data.

Cache hierarchy differs substantially. The Intel has 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 48.75 MB L3 cache. The AMD has 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, but a much larger 128 MB shared L3 cache. This larger L3 cache likely contributes to the AMD’s wins in data-heavy workloads like encryption and sorting. The Intel’s per-core L2 is double the AMD’s, which may aid in its single-thread performance. The Intel’s codename is Sapphire Rapids, while the AMD’s is Siena, and the AMD’s generation is specifically listed as EPYC (Zen 4c (Siena)).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in intended usage. The Intel Xeon w7-2595X is the superior choice for raw computational throughput and single-threaded performance. Its 57.3% lead in single-thread and 46% lead in floating-point math makes it suitable for engineering simulations, financial analysis, and content creation where clock speed and per-core efficiency are paramount. The 13% lead in all Cinebench tests shows it is also a strong rendering chip, despite having fewer cores.

The AMD EPYC 8324P is better suited for specific parallel and memory-intensive server workloads. Its wins in physics, encryption, and prime number finding, combined with a 230.4 GB/s memory bandwidth and 96 PCIe lanes, make it a compelling option for database servers, security appliances, and high-throughput network services. The 40.5% lead in physics is particularly notable for simulation workloads. The AMD also does this with 70 W less TDP, which is a significant efficiency advantage. For users who need maximum single-thread performance and general multi-core muscle, the Intel is the pick. For those with workloads that match the AMD’s specific strengths, the EPYC 8324P provides a measurable performance edge in those areas.