AMD EPYC 9124 vs Intel Xeon w5-3525 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the Intel Xeon w5-3525, which wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The AMD EPYC 9124 takes four wins, but the magnitude of Intel's victories in several key workloads is substantial. In the Cinebench suite, the Intel part leads consistently across all six tests, with multi-core scores of 3927 (R15), 16364 (R20), and 38964 (R23) against the AMD's 3756, 15652, and 37269 respectively. The single-core results follow the same pattern: 554 versus 530 in R15, 2310 versus 2209 in R20, and 5500 versus 5261 in R23. Every Cinebench delta sits between 4.5% and 4.6%, indicating a uniform advantage in both lightly threaded and fully threaded rendering workloads.

The most striking gap appears in PassMark floating point math, where Intel scores 121050 against AMD's 87057, a 39% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison and points to a significant difference in floating-point throughput. Extended instructions also favor Intel heavily, with 49242 versus 43380, a 13.5% edge. PassMark single-thread performance shows Intel at 3330 versus AMD's 2719, a 22.5% lead, which is the second-largest margin recorded. Integer math is closer but still Intel-favored: 155282 against 148785, a 4.4% difference. The PassMark multithread score lands at 45841 for Intel versus 43846 for AMD, a 4.6% win, while data compression shows Intel ahead by a narrower 1.3% (607435 versus 599417).

The AMD EPYC 9124's four wins are concentrated in specific sub-tests. Data encryption is its largest victory: 36078 versus 30507, a 15.4% margin. Random string sorting goes to AMD at 74177 versus 63579, a 14.3% advantage. Physics simulation favors AMD at 3662 versus 3002, an 18% gap. Prime number finding also goes AMD's way: 256 versus 218, a 14.8% margin. These wins share a pattern: they are all memory-latency-sensitive or involve specific algorithmic patterns where AMD's architecture excels. The overall average benchmark score reflects the broader trend, with Intel at 67673 and AMD at 65104, a 3.9% difference in the database's aggregate metric.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon w5-3525 is built on Sapphire Rapids, using Intel's 10 nm process with a die size of 4x 477 mm². The AMD EPYC 9124 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Genoa codename, fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm node with a die size of 4x 72 mm². The transistor count is listed only for AMD at 26,280 million, while Intel's count is not recorded in the database. The process node difference is notable: Intel's 10 nm is physically larger, but the chip uses a four-die configuration that spreads the 16 cores across multiple tiles. AMD's smaller 72 mm² dies are also four in number, but each is far more compact.

Core and thread counts are identical: both have 16 cores and 32 threads. The cache hierarchy differs significantly. Intel provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a 45 MB L3 cache. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a larger 64 MB shared L3. The L3 advantage belongs to AMD by 19 MB, which helps explain its wins in latency-sensitive workloads like random string sorting and physics. Clock speeds tell a different story: Intel's base clock is 3.20 GHz with a boost of 4.80 GHz, while AMD's base is 3.00 GHz with a boost of 3.70 GHz. Intel's boost advantage of 1.10 GHz is substantial and drives its single-thread and floating-point wins.

Memory architecture also diverges. Intel uses an eight-channel DDR5 configuration with 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth. AMD uses a twelve-channel DDR5 setup with 460.8 GB/s, a 50% bandwidth advantage. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity slightly favors AMD: 128 Gen 5 lanes versus Intel's 112 Gen 5 lanes. The TDP figures differ meaningfully: Intel draws 290 W, AMD draws 200 W, a 90 W difference that reflects Intel's higher clock strategy. Neither part has integrated graphics, and both are locked multipliers. The release dates show AMD launched first on 2022-11-09, while Intel followed on 2024-08-23.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon w5-3525 is the clear choice for compute-heavy, floating-point-intensive workloads. The 39% lead in PassMark floating point math is the standout result, and the 13.5% edge in extended instructions reinforces this. Rendering tasks, as measured by the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 suites, all favor Intel by roughly 4.5%, covering both single-core and multi-core scenarios. For general productivity, the 22.5% single-thread advantage means Intel will feel snappier in applications that rely on one or two cores. Integer math and data compression also go to Intel, making it the better option for mixed server workloads that involve number crunching, compilation, or database indexing.

The AMD EPYC 9124 wins where memory bandwidth and cache capacity matter more than raw clock speed. The 64 MB L3 cache and twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth give it advantages in data encryption (15.4% faster), random string sorting (14.3% faster), and physics simulation (18% faster). These workloads often involve large working sets that benefit from the larger cache and higher memory throughput. Prime number finding also favors AMD by 14.8%, a test that stresses integer division and memory access patterns. For deployments where security workloads, in-memory databases, or scientific simulations with large data sets are the priority, AMD's wins in these specific sub-tests matter more than its losses in raw compute.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon w5-3525 leads in PassMark single-thread testing with a score of 3330 versus 2719 for the AMD EPYC 9124, a 22.5% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core also favors Intel at 5500 versus 5261, a 4.5% gap.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-threaded rendering?

A: Intel wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests: R15 at 3927 versus 3756, R20 at 16364 versus 15652, and R23 at 38964 versus 37269. Each result shows a 4.5% to 4.6% lead for Intel.

Q: What explains AMD's wins in encryption and sorting?

A: The AMD EPYC 9124 has a larger 64 MB L3 cache and a twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, compared to Intel's 45 MB L3 and eight-channel 307.2 GB/s setup. These features support its 15.4% lead in data encryption and 14.3% lead in random string sorting.

Q: Is there a difference in power consumption?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon w5-3525 has a TDP of 290 W, while the AMD EPYC 9124 has a TDP of 200 W, a 90 W difference in favor of AMD.

Q: Which processor supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 9124 provides 128 Gen 5 lanes, while the Intel Xeon w5-3525 provides 112 Gen 5 lanes, a difference of 16 lanes.

Q: What is the aggregate benchmark score for each?

A: The database average benchmark score is 67673 for the Intel Xeon w5-3525 and 65104 for the AMD EPYC 9124, placing Intel 3.9% higher overall.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear recommendation for the Intel Xeon w5-3525 for most workloads. It wins 13 of 17 comparisons, including all six Cinebench tests, and holds a 39% advantage in floating point math, the largest margin in the dataset. Its 22.5% single-thread lead makes it the better choice for latency-sensitive, lightly threaded applications. The 4.4% to 4.6% wins in integer math, multithread, and data compression show broad competence across general server tasks. The higher 4.80 GHz boost clock, compared to AMD's 3.70 GHz, provides the headroom that drives these results.

The AMD EPYC 9124 is the better option only in specific scenarios. Its four wins all involve memory-heavy or cache-sensitive workloads: encryption, random string sorting, physics, and prime number finding. The 64 MB L3 cache and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth are genuine advantages for those tasks. Its 200 W TDP also makes it more power-efficient on paper. However, the overall benchmark average of 65104 versus Intel's 67673 shows that these wins do not compensate for the losses elsewhere. For a general-purpose server or workstation CPU, the Intel Xeon w5-3525 is the stronger performer. For workloads that specifically stress memory throughput and cache capacity, the AMD EPYC 9124 has a narrower but real role.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon w5-3525 | AMD EPYC 9124 |

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

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 290 W | 200 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4677 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Sapphire Rapids | Zen 4 (Genoa) |

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

| Die Size | 4x 477 mm² | 4x 72 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 26,280 million |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 45 MB | 64 MB shared |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 307.2 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 112 lanes | Gen 5, 128 lanes |

| Release Date | 2024-08-23 | 2022-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $1339 | $1083 |