AMD EPYC 8324P vs Intel Xeon w7-3565X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Xeon w7-3565X, which wins 14 of the 17 recorded benchmark comparisons. The AMD EPYC 8324P claims only 3 wins. The most striking pattern is the consistency of Intel's margin across the Cinebench suite. In every Cinebench test, from R15 to R23, the Intel part wins by a delta of 23.7% or 23.8%. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel scores 60,045 against AMD's 48,557. The single-core R23 result is similarly lopsided: 8,477 for Intel versus 6,855 for AMD, a 23.7% gap. This uniformity across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads suggests a fundamental clock-speed advantage rather than a scaling quirk.

The widest margin in the entire comparison appears in PassMark floating point math. Intel scores 218,720, which is 57.3% ahead of AMD's 139,022. This is a massive gap for a compute-heavy workload. Extended instructions also favor Intel heavily, with a 42.4% delta (85,856 versus 60,304). Single-thread performance in PassMark shows a 43.9% lead for Intel (3,407 versus 2,367), matching the pattern seen in Cinebench single-core. Data compression is a narrower Intel win, 1,075,602 versus 980,907, a 9.7% margin. Integer math goes to Intel by 12.4% (279,202 versus 248,447). Prime number finding favors Intel by 14.7% (398 versus 347), and the multi-thread PassMark score is 23.7% in Intel's favor (70,642 versus 57,127).

The AMD EPYC 8324P's three wins are worth examining closely because they reveal where the Zen 4c architecture holds an edge. PassMark data encryption is the biggest AMD victory, with a score of 63,195 versus Intel's 54,676, a delta of -13.5% from Intel's perspective. This indicates a 13.5% advantage for AMD in encryption throughput. Physics simulation also goes to AMD, scoring 4,637 versus 4,254, an 8.3% lead. Random string sorting is a narrow AMD win, 113,610 versus 110,848, a 2.4% margin. These wins are isolated to specific workloads and do not offset the broad Intel dominance in raw compute throughput.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear choice for most workloads: the Intel Xeon w7-3565X. With 14 wins out of 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench benchmark and most PassMark categories, this processor is the stronger all-around performer. The 23.7% lead across the entire Cinebench suite, which spans multiple generations of the test, indicates a consistent and substantial performance advantage in both lightly threaded and fully loaded scenarios. For users running rendering, scientific computing, or general server workloads that rely on floating point math, integer math, and extended instruction sets, the Intel part is the superior option based on the numbers.

The AMD EPYC 8324P is the pick only for specific, narrow use cases. If the workload is dominated by data encryption, where AMD leads by 13.5%, or physics simulation, where AMD leads by 8.3%, the AMD part has a measurable advantage. Also, the 2.4% win in random string sorting, while small, shows AMD is not without merit in certain data manipulation tasks. However, these three wins are the exception, not the rule. The database also places both processors in the 97th percentile of all CPUs, meaning both are top-tier parts. But within that elite tier, Intel holds a decisive edge in the majority of measured tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon w7-3565X uses the Sapphire Rapids architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The die size is listed as 4x 477 mm², indicating a four-die configuration. The AMD EPYC 8324P uses the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. AMD's design uses 35,500 million transistors across a die size of 4x 73 mm². The process node difference is significant: TSMC's 5 nm versus Intel's 10 nm. This explains some of the efficiency differences, though the benchmark data shows Intel overcomes any process disadvantage with higher clock speeds.

Cache structures differ notably. Intel provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 82.5 MB of L3 cache. AMD offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a much larger 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L3 on AMD could help in cache-sensitive workloads, but the benchmark data shows Intel winning most cache-heavy tests anyway. The L3 difference is 128 MB versus 82.5 MB, a 45.5 MB advantage for AMD, yet this does not translate into broad benchmark wins. The instruction set support, as measured by PassMark extended instructions, heavily favors Intel at 85,856 versus 60,304.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across several key specifications. Both have 32 cores and 64 threads, so core count is not a differentiator. The base clocks differ slightly: Intel runs at 2.50 GHz, AMD at 2.65 GHz. However, the boost clocks are dramatically different. Intel boosts to 4.80 GHz, while AMD only reaches 3.00 GHz. This 1.80 GHz boost advantage is the most likely explanation for Intel's consistent single-thread wins, which range from 23.7% to 43.9% depending on the test.

Thermal design power differs substantially. Intel is rated at 335 W, AMD at 180 W. This is a 155 W difference, meaning AMD draws significantly less power under load. The memory bus also differs: Intel uses an eight-channel configuration with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth, while AMD uses six channels with 230.4 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ as well, with Intel offering Gen 5 with 112 lanes versus AMD's Gen 5 with 96 lanes. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC. The sockets are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 4677, AMD uses Socket SP6. The release dates show AMD launching earlier on 2023-09-17, with Intel following on 2024-08-23.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3565X boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 8324P boosts to 3.00 GHz.

Q: How much larger is the AMD L3 cache compared to Intel?

A: AMD has 128 MB of shared L3 cache, while Intel has 82.5 MB, giving AMD a 45.5 MB advantage.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel part is rated at 335 W TDP, while the AMD part is rated at 180 W TDP, a 155 W difference in favor of AMD.

Q: Which CPU wins in encryption workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 8324P wins PassMark data encryption with a score of 63,195 versus Intel's 54,676, a 13.5% advantage.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon w7-3565X and the AMD EPYC 8324P have ECC memory support enabled.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: Intel provides Gen 5 with 112 lanes, while AMD provides Gen 5 with 96 lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon w7-3565X wins in every Cinebench test by 23.7% or 23.8%, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads across R15, R20, and R23. It wins PassMark floating point math by 57.3%, extended instructions by 42.4%, single-thread by 43.9%, multi-thread by 23.7%, integer math by 12.4%, prime numbers by 14.7%, and data compression by 9.7%. These wins cover rendering, scientific computation, general math, and data compression. The Intel part is the clear choice for any workload that stresses raw compute throughput, particularly floating point and extended instruction execution.

The AMD EPYC 8324P wins in PassMark data encryption by 13.5%, physics by 8.3%, and random string sorting by 2.4%. These are specialized wins. Encryption workloads, which rely on cryptographic operations, show AMD's architecture has a dedicated strength. Physics simulation, which often involves specific mathematical patterns, also favors AMD. Random string sorting, a narrow data manipulation task, is a slight AMD advantage. For users running primarily encryption-heavy services or certain physics simulation codes, the AMD part offers a measurable benefit. For everything else, the data favors Intel. The AMD part also has a lower TDP at 180 W versus 335 W, which could matter in power-constrained environments, though the benchmark scores do not capture power efficiency directly.