AMD EPYC 8324P vs Intel Xeon w7-3555 Comparison

The Intel Xeon w7-3555 and AMD EPYC 8324P are both high-end server/workstation processors, but the benchmark data shows they are optimized for very different workloads. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 dominates the Cinebench suite and several Passmark compute tests, while the AMD EPYC 8324P wins in data compression, encryption, integer math, and random string sorting. Overall, the Intel chip holds a 2.8% higher average benchmark score (106,192 vs. 103,329), but the AMD chip counters with a 24% lead in encryption and a 15.4% lead in string sorting, making the choice entirely dependent on the specific application.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the consistency of Intel's wins. Across all six Cinebench tests—R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core—the Xeon w7-3555 wins by exactly 18.6% in every multi-core test and 18.6-18.7% in single-core tests. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel scores 57,590 against AMD's 48,557, a 9,033-point gap. This uniformity suggests the advantage is architectural, not workload-specific. Single-core scores are equally decisive: the Intel chip posts 8,130 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 6,855 for the EPYC, and in Passmark single-thread, the Intel leads by a massive 49.9% (3,549 vs. 2,367). That near-50% margin in single-threaded performance is the largest delta in the entire comparison.

Beyond Cinebench, the Intel processor extends its lead in several Passmark compute benchmarks. Floating-point math shows the biggest absolute victory: Intel scores 190,917 versus AMD's 139,022, a 37.3% advantage. Extended instructions also favor Intel strongly, with 77,619 versus 60,304 (28.7% ahead). Physics simulation goes Intel's way too, 5,802 versus 4,637 (25.1% ahead), and even prime number finding, a traditionally integer-heavy task, sees Intel at 398 versus 347 (14.7% ahead). The Passmark multithread score follows the Cinebench pattern, with Intel at 67,754 versus 57,127 (18.6% ahead).

The AMD EPYC 8324P, however, is not without its victories. The largest is in data encryption, where it scores 63,195 against Intel's 48,007—a 24% advantage. This is a substantial lead in a critical server workload. Random string sorting also goes to AMD, 113,610 versus 96,112 (15.4% ahead). Data compression is a narrow win for AMD, 980,907 versus 966,970 (1.4% ahead), and integer math is similarly close, with AMD at 248,447 versus Intel's 244,642 (1.5% ahead). These four wins are all in data-centric or memory-latency-sensitive tasks, which aligns with the EPYC's larger L3 cache and higher core count.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear fork in the road. If your workload is dominated by floating-point math, physics simulation, instruction-heavy code, or any single-threaded performance, the Intel Xeon w7-3555 is the definitive choice. Its 37.3% lead in floating-point math and 49.9% lead in single-thread performance are not marginal—they are transformative for applications that rely on per-core speed or heavy FPU utilization. The near-50% single-thread advantage means legacy or lightly-threaded code will run dramatically faster on the Intel part.

Conversely, the AMD EPYC 8324P is the pick for data security and manipulation workloads. Its 24% lead in data encryption is the single biggest win for either chip in the entire comparison, and its 15.4% advantage in random string sorting indicates superior memory subsystem efficiency for random access patterns. For servers handling encrypted traffic, database lookups, or compression tasks, the EPYC's wins in those specific Passmark tests are more relevant than its losses in raw compute.

The average benchmark scores tell the overall story: Intel at 106,192, AMD at 103,329, a 2.8% delta in favor of Intel. But that aggregate figure masks the specialization. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 is the higher-performing processor in 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, including all rendering and most compute tests. The AMD EPYC 8324P wins 4 tests, but those wins are in areas where Intel is decisively weak, particularly encryption. For a general-purpose workstation, the Intel chip is the safer bet. For a security-focused server, the AMD chip is the only rational choice based on this data.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon w7-3555 wins in all three Cinebench generations (R15, R20, R23) for both single-core and multi-core, making it the clear choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any software that uses the Cinebench-style ray-tracing workload. It also wins Passmark floating-point math (37.3% ahead), extended instructions (28.7% ahead), physics (25.1% ahead), and prime number finding (14.7% ahead). These are classic CPU-bound compute tasks—scientific simulation, financial modeling, and code compilation will all favor the Intel silicon. The 49.9% lead in Passmark single-thread also means the Intel chip is superior for legacy software, poorly parallelized applications, and any task with a strict latency requirement per core.

The AMD EPYC 8324P wins in data encryption by 24%, which is a critical metric for TLS termination, VPN gateways, and database encryption. It also wins random string sorting by 15.4%, indicating strength in sorting algorithms, hash joins, and in-memory database operations. The narrow wins in data compression (1.4%) and integer math (1.5%) are smaller but still meaningful; they suggest the EPYC is slightly better at general integer arithmetic and lossless compression workloads like file archiving or log processing. The AMD chip's 32 cores versus Intel's 28 cores provide the raw thread count for these parallel data tasks, even though the Intel chip's higher clock speeds win most multi-threaded tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3555 is significantly faster, winning Passmark single-thread by 49.9% (3,549 vs. 2,367) and Cinebench R23 single-core by 18.6% (8,130 vs. 6,855).

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 8324P win any multi-core tests?

A: No. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 wins all multi-core Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23) by 18.6% each, and also wins Passmark multithread by 18.6% (67,754 vs. 57,127). The AMD chip's wins are in data compression, encryption, integer math, and string sorting.

Q: Which chip is better for encryption workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 8324P, which scores 63,195 in Passmark data encryption versus Intel's 48,007—a 24% advantage for AMD.

Q: How do the two chips compare in floating-point performance?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3555 dominates, posting 190,917 in Passmark floating-point math versus AMD's 139,022, a 37.3% lead for Intel.

Q: What is the overall average benchmark score difference?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3555 has an average benchmark score of 106,192, while the AMD EPYC 8324P scores 103,329. Intel is 2.8% higher, and both chips sit in the 97th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 8324P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon w7-3555 has 28 cores and 56 threads. Despite fewer cores, Intel wins most multi-threaded tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 uses the Sapphire Rapids architecture on a 10 nm process fabricated by Intel, with a die size of 4x 477 mm². It features 28 cores and 56 threads, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its cache hierarchy is per-core: 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and a total of 75 MB L3. The Intel chip supports DDR5 memory across an eight-channel bus, delivering 307.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It also offers Gen 5 PCIe with 112 lanes (CPU only).

The AMD EPYC 8324P uses the Zen 4c architecture (codename Siena) on a 5 nm process fabricated by TSMC, with 35,500 million transistors spread across 4x 73 mm² dies. It has 32 cores and 64 threads, with a base clock of 2.65 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. Its cache is configured differently: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, but a massive 128 MB shared L3. The AMD chip also supports DDR5, but across a six-channel bus, yielding 230.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It provides Gen 5 PCIe with 96 lanes (CPU only). The Zen 4c cores are designed for density and power efficiency, which explains the lower clock speeds but higher core count.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon w7-3555 | AMD EPYC 8324P |

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

| Cores | 28 | 32 |

| Threads | 56 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.65 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 325 W | 180 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4677 | AMD Socket SP6 |

| Process Node | 10 nm (Intel) | 5 nm (TSMC) |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 75 MB | 128 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Six-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 307.2 GB/s | 230.4 GB/s |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 112 (CPU only) | Gen 5, 96 (CPU only) |

| Release Date | 2024-08-23 | 2023-09-17 |

| Launch MSRP | $2339 | $1895 |

| Part Number | SRN75 | 100-000001133 |

The most consequential differences are the boost clock (4.80 GHz vs. 3.00 GHz), TDP (325 W vs. 180 W), and L3 cache (75 MB vs. 128 MB). Intel's higher boost clock explains its single-thread dominance, while AMD's larger shared L3 cache explains its wins in data compression and string sorting. The AMD chip has 4 more cores and 8 more threads, but Intel's clock speed advantage overcomes that in most multi-threaded tests. Both support ECC memory and have no integrated graphics, and both are actively produced server/workstation parts.