AMD EPYC 9124 vs Intel Xeon 6515P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clear pattern: the Intel Xeon 6515P wins 13 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 9124 takes the remaining 4. The margins, however, vary dramatically depending on the workload type.

In the Cinebench suite, the Intel part is consistently ahead by 3.4% across all six tests. The multicore scores tell the story: Cinebench R15 multicore shows 3885 versus 3756, R20 multicore shows 16189 versus 15652, and R23 multicore shows 38547 versus 37269. Single-core results follow the same 3.4% delta, with the Xeon 6515P scoring 548 in R15 single-core, 2285 in R20 single-core, and 5442 in R23 single-core against the EPYC's 530, 2209, and 5261 respectively.

PassMark multithread and single-thread results reinforce this lead. The Xeon 6515P scores 45350 in PassMark multithread versus 43846 for the EPYC 9124, a 3.4% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the Intel chip leads 2855 to 2719, a 5% margin.

The Intel processor's biggest wins come in specialized compute workloads. PassMark floating point math shows the Xeon 6515P at 128954 against 87057 for the EPYC 9124, a massive 48.1% advantage. Even more striking is PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel part scores 385 versus 256, a 50.4% lead. PassMark extended instructions also favors Intel heavily: 53383 versus 43380, a 23.1% gap.

The AMD EPYC 9124 answers back in four specific areas. PassMark data encryption is its strongest win: 36078 versus 30476, a 15.5% advantage. PassMark random string sorting goes to AMD at 74177 versus 64425, a 13.1% lead. PassMark data compression shows the EPYC ahead by a slim 1.1% (599417 versus 592645). PassMark integer math is the closest contest of all: 148785 versus 147047, a 1.2% edge for AMD.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split. The Xeon 6515P posts an average benchmark score of 67006, while the EPYC 9124 sits at 65104. Both processors land in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66925 (0.1% behind), the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66855 (0.2% behind), and the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX at 67469 (0.7% ahead). The EPYC 9124's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P at 64823 (0.4% behind) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 at 64640 (0.7% behind).

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on a 5 nm process node, but they come from different foundries. The Intel Xeon 6515P is fabricated by Intel itself, while the AMD EPYC 9124 is produced by TSMC. This is where the similarities end.

The Xeon 6515P uses the Granite Rapids architecture, specifically from the Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP) generation. It is a 16-core, 32-thread part with a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Its cache hierarchy consists of 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 72 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor fits into Intel Socket 4710.

The EPYC 9124 belongs to the EPYC 9004 series and uses the Zen 4 architecture under the codename Genoa. It also has 16 cores and 32 threads, but its clocks differ: a base of 3.00 GHz (higher than the Intel part) and a boost of 3.70 GHz (slightly lower). The cache layout is different as well: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The AMD part uses AMD Socket SP5.

The transistor counts and die sizes are recorded only for the AMD side. The EPYC 9124 contains 26,280 million transistors across a 4x 72 mm² die configuration. No comparable figures are listed for the Intel Xeon 6515P.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Intel Xeon 6515P supports DDR5 over an eight-channel memory bus with 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD EPYC 9124 also supports DDR5 but over a twelve-channel bus, yielding 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs substantially. The Intel part provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only). The AMD part provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). This gives the EPYC 9124 a notable expansion and I/O capacity advantage on paper.

The Intel Xeon 6515P has no integrated graphics. The AMD EPYC 9124 also has no integrated graphics listed.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits the two processors into distinct workload profiles.

The Intel Xeon 6515P is the choice for compute-heavy, floating-point, and single-thread-sensitive tasks. Its 48.1% lead in PassMark floating point math and 50.4% lead in PassMark find prime numbers are the largest margins in the entire comparison. The 23.1% advantage in PassMark extended instructions suggests strong vector and specialized instruction performance. The consistent 3.4% edge across every Cinebench test, both single and multi-core, indicates a general performance advantage in rendering and 3D workloads. The 5% lead in PassMark single-thread also makes it the better option for lightly threaded applications that depend on raw clock speed and per-core efficiency.

The AMD EPYC 9124 wins where data movement and specific cryptographic or sorting operations dominate. Its 15.5% advantage in PassMark data encryption points to stronger encryption throughput. The 13.1% lead in PassMark random string sorting suggests an edge in data organization and text-processing workloads. The 1.1% win in data compression and the 1.2% win in integer math are narrow but consistent, giving AMD a slight edge in integer-heavy and compression-oriented server tasks.

The EPYC 9124 also carries a higher base clock (3.00 GHz versus 2.30 GHz) and a wider memory bus (twelve-channel versus eight-channel), which may benefit sustained throughput in memory-bandwidth-sensitive server environments even if the recorded benchmark deltas are modest.

Specification Differences

The two processors share several core parameters but differ in many others.

Both have 16 cores and 32 threads. Both are server/workstation parts, active in production, and have locked multipliers. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC memory.

Clock speeds differ. The Intel Xeon 6515P has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost of 3.80 GHz. The AMD EPYC 9124 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost of 3.70 GHz.

TDP differs significantly: the Intel part is rated at 150 W, while the AMD part is rated at 200 W.

Sockets differ: Intel Socket 4710 for the Xeon, AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC.

Cache differs across all levels. Intel uses 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 72 MB shared L3. AMD uses 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3.

Memory bus width differs: eight-channel for Intel, twelve-channel for AMD. Memory bandwidth also differs: 409.6 GB/s for Intel, 460.8 GB/s for AMD.

PCIe lanes differ: 88 lanes (Gen 5) for Intel, 128 lanes (Gen 5) for AMD.

Process node is the same (5 nm), but foundry differs: Intel for the Xeon, TSMC for the EPYC.

Transistor count and die size are recorded only for the AMD EPYC 9124: 26,280 million transistors and a 4x 72 mm² die.

Release dates differ substantially. The Intel Xeon 6515P was released on 2025-02-23. The AMD EPYC 9124 was released on 2022-11-09.

The Intel part carries launch MSRP of $740. The AMD part carries launch MSRP of $1083.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 6515P has an average benchmark score of 67006, compared to 65104 for the AMD EPYC 9124.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Xeon 6515P in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel part scores 38547 versus 37269 for the AMD EPYC 9124, a 3.4% advantage.

Q: Where does the AMD EPYC 9124 have its largest win?

A: The EPYC 9124 leads by 15.5% in PassMark data encryption, scoring 36078 against 30476 for the Intel Xeon 6515P.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark margin between these two CPUs?

A: The Intel Xeon 6515P leads by 50.4% in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 385 versus 256 for the AMD EPYC 9124.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9124 has 460.8 GB/s over a twelve-channel bus, while the Intel Xeon 6515P has 409.6 GB/s over an eight-channel bus.

Q: How do the TDP ratings compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 6515P is rated at 150 W, while the AMD EPYC 9124 is rated at 200 W.

The Verdict

The data presents a fairly clear picture. The Intel Xeon 6515P wins the majority of benchmark comparisons, including all six Cinebench tests, PassMark multithread, PassMark single-thread, PassMark physics, PassMark extended instructions, PassMark floating point math, and PassMark find prime numbers. Its margins in floating-point and prime-number workloads are exceptionally large, at 48.1% and 50.4% respectively.

The AMD EPYC 9124 should be selected by users whose workloads prioritize data encryption, random string sorting, data compression, or integer math. Its 15.5% encryption lead and 13.1% sorting lead are meaningful for those specific tasks. The EPYC also offers a higher base clock (3.00 GHz versus 2.30 GHz), twelve-channel memory support with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, which may matter in server configurations that demand extensive I/O or memory throughput.

The Intel Xeon 6515P is the better general-purpose performer based on the recorded benchmark results. It wins the broader set of tests, posts a higher average benchmark score (67006 versus 65104), and does so at a lower TDP (150 W versus 200 W). Its 72 MB of shared L3 cache, higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz, and 88 PCIe Gen 5 lanes round out a strong profile for compute-heavy server and workstation tasks.

For buyers who need a processor for rendering, floating-point math, scientific computation, or heavily threaded general workloads, the Intel Xeon 6515P is the data-backed choice. For those who need encryption throughput, high-bandwidth memory access, or maximum PCIe lane count, the AMD EPYC 9124 has the recorded advantages. Both sit in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, so either represents a high-end option; the difference lies in where each one applies its strengths.