AMD EPYC 9135 vs Intel Xeon w7-2575X Comparison

The Intel Xeon w7-2575X and AMD EPYC 9135 are both active server/workstation processors that land in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, yet their benchmark profiles could not be more different. The EPYC 9135 takes 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the Xeon w7-2575X secures decisive victories in math-heavy and data-compression workloads. This is a contest between Intel’s 22-core Sapphire Rapids chip and AMD’s 16-core Zen 5 Turin part, and the data reveals that raw core count does not always dictate the winner.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9135 dominates the Cinebench suite with a consistent 9.9% margin across all six tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 49,136 against the Xeon’s 44,277, while in single-core it posts 6,936 versus 6,250. The same 9.9% gap appears in R15 and R20 for both multi-core and single-core runs, showing a uniform advantage in rendering-oriented workloads. The PassMark multi-thread test also goes AMD’s way, with 57,170 versus 52,091, an 8.9% lead.

The EPYC’s largest win comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 5,477 against the Xeon’s 2,222. That is a 59.4% deficit for Intel, the single biggest margin in the entire comparison. The AMD chip also wins PassMark random string sorting (90,064 versus 77,986, a 13.4% edge), find prime numbers (292 versus 218, a 25.3% advantage), and single-thread performance (3,672 versus 3,300, a 10.1% lead). Data encryption also favors the EPYC, though narrowly: 40,295 versus 39,295, just 2.5% apart.

The Intel Xeon w7-2575X, despite losing the overall count, wins the tests where it matters most for certain workloads. PassMark floating point math shows a 35.3% victory, with 171,427 versus 126,679. Extended instructions go Intel’s way by 12%, at 62,498 versus 55,822. Integer math is 8.4% better on Intel (219,924 versus 202,962), and data compression favors the Xeon by 6.8% (789,817 versus 739,277). These four wins are substantial, but they are concentrated in arithmetic and compression rather than general-purpose throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different nodes and designs. The Intel Xeon w7-2575X uses 22 cores and 44 threads, fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process under the Sapphire Rapids codename. The AMD EPYC 9135 is a 16-core, 32-thread part using TSMC’s 4 nm node with a Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, and belongs to the EPYC 9005 series. The transistor counts differ dramatically, with the EPYC packing 16,630 million transistors across a dual-chip design of 2x 70.6 mm², while the Xeon’s die size is not listed.

Cache hierarchies show a split philosophy. Both allocate 80 KB of L1 per core, but the Xeon offers 2 MB of L2 per core versus 1 MB on the EPYC. The L3 cache flips the advantage: the EPYC has 64 MB shared, while the Xeon has 45 MB total. Clock speeds also diverge — the EPYC starts at 3.65 GHz base and boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the Xeon runs a 3.00 GHz base with a 4.80 GHz boost. The Xeon has a higher ceiling, but the EPYC’s base clock is 21.7% higher.

Memory and I/O configurations are starkly different. The Xeon uses quad-channel DDR5 with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and 64 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The EPYC uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth — 3.75 times the Xeon’s memory bandwidth — and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, double the Intel part. Both support ECC memory and lack integrated graphics. The Xeon has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC is locked. Power draw favors AMD at 200 W TDP versus Intel’s 250 W.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9135 is the clear choice for multi-threaded rendering and physics simulation. Its Cinebench sweep across R15, R20, and R23, coupled with the PassMark multi-thread score, shows superior scaling in threaded workloads despite having 6 fewer cores and 12 fewer threads. The physics score of 5,477 versus 2,222 is particularly telling — the Zen 5 architecture delivers more than double the physics throughput per core. Random string sorting also favors AMD, indicating strong memory-handling capabilities in sorting tasks. The EPYC’s single-thread lead of 10.1% suggests it handles lightly threaded applications better as well.

The Intel Xeon w7-2575X wins where floating-point precision and instruction-level parallelism matter. The 35.3% margin in floating point math makes it the better fit for scientific computing, financial modeling, and simulation workloads that rely heavily on FPU throughput. The 12% edge in extended instructions points to superior SIMD or specialized instruction handling. Data compression, where Intel leads by 6.8%, indicates an advantage in archiving, database compression, and file-system tasks. Integer math also favors Intel by 8.4%, which could benefit certain encryption or hashing algorithms, though the EPYC wins the general data encryption test.

For users who need massive memory bandwidth and PCIe lane count, the EPYC’s twelve-channel memory and 128 lanes provide a structural advantage that no benchmark can fully capture. The Xeon counters with a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.30 GHz, which may help in bursty single-thread scenarios, though the benchmark data shows the EPYC still wins single-thread tests by 10.1%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks head-to-head?

A: The AMD EPYC 9135 wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Xeon w7-2575X wins 4.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark physics, where the EPYC 9135 scores 5,477 versus the Xeon’s 2,222, a 59.4% difference.

Q: Does the Xeon’s higher core count help it in any tests?

A: Yes, the 22-core Xeon wins PassMark floating point math (171,427 versus 126,679), extended instructions, integer math, and data compression, despite having more cores than the 16-core EPYC.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: The EPYC 9135 uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon w7-2575X uses quad-channel DDR5 with 153.6 GB/s. The EPYC also has 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 64 on the Xeon.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Both are in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon has an average benchmark score of 88,172, while the EPYC averages 82,980.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-2575X boosts to 4.80 GHz, higher than the EPYC 9135’s 4.30 GHz, though the EPYC has a higher base clock at 3.65 GHz versus 3.00 GHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon w7-2575X | AMD EPYC 9135 |

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

| Cores | 22 | 16 |

| Threads | 44 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.65 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 250 W | 200 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4677 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Sapphire Rapids | Zen 5 (Turin) |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 16,630 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 2x 70.6 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache | 45 MB | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 64 Lanes | Gen 5, 128 Lanes |

| Multiplier | Unlocked | Locked |

| Launch MSRP | $1689 | $1214 |

| Release Date | 2024-08-23 | 2024-10-09 |