AMD EPYC 9115 vs Intel Xeon w5-3525 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9115 and Intel Xeon w5-3525 are both 16-core, 32-thread workstation processors, but benchmark data shows they are optimized for entirely different workloads. The AMD EPYC 9115 wins 14 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, dominating in integer-heavy and physics-based tasks, while the Intel Xeon w5-3525 counters with decisive victories in floating-point math, extended instruction sets, and data compression. This is not a case of one chip being universally superior; it is a clear fork between computation styles, with the EPYC 9115 leading the overall average benchmark score at 69288 versus the Xeon's 67673.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9115 owns the workloads that depend on raw integer throughput and memory parallelism. Its most dramatic victories come in PassMark physics (4188 vs 3002, a 39.5% lead) and prime number finding (289 vs 218, a 32.6% lead). These results point to superior per-core integer execution and memory latency handling. The EPYC 9115 also takes integer math outright with a 17.1% margin (181807 vs 155282) and random string sorting by 10.3% (70151 vs 63579). In multithreaded aggregate performance, it maintains a 6.8% lead (48936 vs 45841), confirming that its advantage scales with core count.

The Intel Xeon w5-3525 wins where floating-point precision and specialized instruction execution matter. Its largest head-to-head victory is in extended instructions, scoring 49242 against 45477, a 7.6% margin. It also leads floating-point math at 121050 vs 113853, a 5.9% advantage, and data compression at 607435 vs 600099, a 1.2% edge. These three wins suggest the Xeon w5-3525 is tuned for scientific computing, encryption-adjacent workloads, and media processing that leverage AVX-512 class instructions and higher per-core clock rates.

The single-thread picture is nearly a tie, but the EPYC 9115 edges ahead. In PassMark single-thread, the EPYC 9115 scores 3360 versus 3330, a 0.9% lead. Across all Cinebench single-core tests (R15, R20, R23), the EPYC 9115 holds a consistent 7.8% advantage, scoring 597 vs 554, 2490 vs 2310, and 5929 vs 5500 respectively. This means the EPYC 9115 is not just a multi-core monster; it also has the better single-core ceiling for lightly threaded tasks.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD EPYC 9115 if your workloads are dominated by integer math, physics simulation, database-style random sorting, or any task that benefits from massive memory bandwidth. The data is unambiguous: it wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, including all six Cinebench tests and the PassMark multithread score by 6.8%. Its 576.0 GB/s twelve-channel memory bandwidth dwarfs the Xeon's 307.2 GB/s eight-channel config, which directly explains its 32.6% prime number win and 17.1% integer math win. For general workstation compute where integer operations are the bottleneck, the EPYC 9115 is the faster processor.

Pick the Intel Xeon w5-3525 if your code is floating-point heavy or makes heavy use of extended instruction sets. The Xeon w5-3525 wins extended instructions by 7.6% and floating-point math by 5.9%, indicating better execution units for vectorized scientific code, 3D rendering, and financial modeling. It also takes data compression by 1.2%, making it the better choice for archive management and certain database compression tasks. The Xeon w5-3525 reaches a 4.80 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC 9115's 4.10 GHz, which helps explain its floating-point edge despite the EPYC's architectural advantages.

The average benchmark scores confirm the overall hierarchy. The EPYC 9115 sits at 69288 average, placing it 0.1% behind the Intel Core i7-14700K and 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X. The Xeon w5-3525 averages 67673, trailing the AMD EPYC 4484PX by 0.2% and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX by 0.3%. Both chips sit at the 94th percentile of all CPUs, but the EPYC 9115 has the higher raw score, making it the default choice for mixed workloads unless floating-point dominance is the specific requirement.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the AMD EPYC 9115 is PassMark physics, where it scores 4188 against the Xeon's 3002. That 39.5% delta is the clearest signal in the entire comparison — it indicates the EPYC 9115's Zen 5 architecture handles rigid body dynamics and collision detection far more efficiently. The second biggest win is prime number finding at 32.6% (289 vs 218), a test that is highly sensitive to integer division and memory access patterns. The EPYC 9115's 64 MB shared L3 cache versus the Xeon's 45 MB L3 likely contributes to this gap.

The Intel Xeon w5-3525's largest win is extended instructions at 7.6% (49242 vs 45477). This is followed by floating-point math at 5.9% (121050 vs 113853). The Xeon's 2 MB per-core L2 cache (versus the EPYC's 1 MB per-core) and higher 4.80 GHz boost clock help it execute instruction-heavy loops faster. Its data compression win is narrow at 1.2% (607435 vs 600099), but it is consistent with the Xeon's strength in memory-bound sequential workloads.

In Cinebench, the EPYC 9115 sweeps all six tests with a uniform 7.8% delta. The R23 multicore score of 42003 vs 38964 is the most representative of sustained all-core loads. The EPYC 9115 also wins PassMark multithread by 6.8% (48936 vs 45841), and data encryption by 9.8% (33489 vs 30507). The encryption result is notable because it combines integer math with memory bandwidth, both areas where the EPYC 9115 leads. The only single-thread win for the EPYC is marginal at 0.9% (3360 vs 3330), but it still counts.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9115 wins every single-core benchmark in the data. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 5929 versus the Xeon's 5500, a 7.8% lead. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 3360 versus 3330, a 0.9% lead.

Q: Is the Intel Xeon w5-3525 ever faster than the AMD EPYC 9115?

A: Yes, in three specific areas. The Xeon w5-3525 wins extended instructions (49242 vs 45477), floating-point math (121050 vs 113853), and data compression (607435 vs 600099). These are the only benchmark categories where it overtakes the EPYC 9115.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9115 uses a twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus delivering 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon w5-3525 uses an eight-channel DDR5 bus delivering 307.2 GB/s. This 268.8 GB/s difference is the largest architectural gap between the two processors.

Q: What is the core and thread count for both processors?

A: Both the AMD EPYC 9115 and Intel Xeon w5-3525 have 16 cores and 32 threads. They also share the same 80 KB per-core L1 cache size, but differ in L2 and L3 cache allocation.

Q: Which CPU is better for physics simulation?

A: The AMD EPYC 9115 is decisively better. In PassMark physics, it scores 4188 versus the Xeon's 3002, a 39.5% advantage. This is the largest performance gap in any benchmark between the two chips.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 9115 and Intel Xeon w5-3525 support ECC memory. Both also lack integrated graphics, making them dependent on discrete GPUs for display output.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9115 is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, and fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It uses 16,630 million transistors across a dual-chiplet design with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². This small, dense design allows the EPYC 9115 to achieve high performance at a 125 TDP. The Intel Xeon w5-3525 uses the Sapphire Rapids architecture on a 10 nm Intel process, with a much larger die size of 4x 477 mm². The Xeon's design is older and less power-efficient, requiring a 290 TDP to reach its clock speeds.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The EPYC 9115 has 1 MB of L2 cache per core and a 64 MB shared L3 cache. The Xeon w5-3525 doubles the L2 to 2 MB per core but reduces the L3 to 45 MB shared. This means the Xeon has faster access to recently used data per core, while the EPYC has a larger pool of shared cache for all cores to draw from. The EPYC's memory bandwidth advantage is stark: 576.0 GB/s over twelve channels versus the Xeon's 307.2 GB/s over eight channels.

PCIe connectivity also favors AMD. The EPYC 9115 provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon w5-3525 provides Gen 5 with 112 lanes (CPU only). Both use DDR5 memory and support ECC. The EPYC 9115 was released on 2024-10-09, while the Xeon w5-3525 was released earlier on 2024-08-23. Both are active production parts.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is TDP: the AMD EPYC 9115 draws 125 watts, while the Intel Xeon w5-3525 draws 290 watts. This is a 165-watt gap that has major implications for cooling and power delivery. Clock speeds also favor Intel: the Xeon w5-3525 has a 3.20 GHz base clock and 4.80 GHz boost, while the EPYC 9115 has a 2.60 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the EPYC 9115 wins most benchmarks due to its newer architecture.

Memory channels differ: the EPYC 9115 has twelve channels versus the Xeon's eight. This produces a memory bandwidth difference of 576.0 GB/s versus 307.2 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ by 16 lanes (128 vs 112), both Gen 5. Cache differs in L2 (1 MB vs 2 MB per core) and L3 (64 MB vs 45 MB). The process node differs: 4 nm TSMC versus 10 nm Intel. The EPYC 9115 uses the AMD Socket SP5, while the Xeon w5-3525 uses Intel Socket 4677. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 9115 is $726, and for the Xeon w5-3525 it is $1339. Both are locked multipliers and have no integrated graphics.