AMD EPYC 9175F vs Intel Xeon 6520P Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9175F and Intel Xeon 6520P are two active server processors that target similar workloads but achieve their results through very different design philosophies. The benchmark data reveals a clear overall winner in the AMD EPYC 9175F, which secures 15 out of 17 head-to-head victories, yet the Intel Xeon 6520P demonstrates specific strengths that make it the better choice for particular tasks. The average benchmark scores place the AMD EPYC 9175F at 95,615 compared to the Intel Xeon 6520P’s 93,786, a 1.9% difference that tells only part of the story, as individual workload results swing dramatically in both directions.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9175F dominates the Cinebench suite with a consistent 4.5% advantage across all six tests, from the R15 multicore score of 5,636 versus 5,392 to the R23 singlecore result of 7,895 versus 7,552. This pattern extends to PassMark’s multithread test, where the EPYC scores 67,634 against Intel’s 62,936, a 7.5% margin. The most striking victory comes in the find prime numbers test, where the EPYC’s 741 score crushes the Xeon’s 526, a 40.9% gap that suggests a massive advantage in integer-heavy computation that benefits from high clock speeds and efficient core design.

The physics workload tells a similar story, with the EPYC scoring 9,984 versus 7,209, a 38.5% lead that indicates superior handling of simulation and rigid body calculations. Single-threaded performance is another clear EPYC win, as the PassMark single thread score of 4,256 versus 3,356 represents a 26.8% advantage, which directly reflects the EPYC’s 5.00 GHz boost clock compared to the Xeon’s 4.00 GHz. Extended instructions also favor AMD by 9.3%, with scores of 70,529 versus 64,557, suggesting better optimization for AVX-512-style workloads.

The Intel Xeon 6520P wins in exactly two categories, but they are notable ones. Data encryption sees Intel ahead with 45,188 versus 42,297, a 6.4% margin that points to robust cryptographic acceleration. Floating-point math is an even larger Intel victory, with 162,862 against AMD’s 145,939, a 10.4% gap that shows the Xeon’s 24 cores can outperform the EPYC’s 16 cores when the workload scales well across many threads and benefits from raw FP throughput. The random string sorting test is effectively a tie at 95,783 versus 95,736, a 0% delta that highlights how close these processors can be in memory-bound sorting tasks.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split recommendation. The AMD EPYC 9175F is the superior choice for anyone running Cinebench-style rendering, general multithreaded applications, physics simulations, prime number calculations, or any workload where single-threaded performance and high boost clocks matter. Its 16 cores and 32 threads are sufficient to beat the Xeon’s 24 cores and 48 threads in most tests, which implies that AMD’s Zen 5 architecture delivers more per-core performance than Intel’s Granite Rapids design.

The Intel Xeon 6520P is the better pick specifically for floating-point math and encryption tasks, where its higher core count and different architectural strengths shine. The 10.4% lead in floating-point math and 6.4% lead in encryption are substantial enough that users running scientific simulations, financial modeling, or heavy cryptographic workloads should consider Intel’s offering despite its losses elsewhere. The Xeon also has a significantly lower TDP of 210 watts versus 320 watts, which may factor into dense server deployments where power density is a concern.

For mixed workloads, the AMD EPYC 9175F is the safer bet given its 15 wins and higher average score. The 1.9% overall advantage in average benchmark score is modest, but the distribution of wins heavily favors AMD, and the magnitude of victories in single-threaded and physics tests suggests the EPYC will feel snappier in interactive or latency-sensitive tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the AMD EPYC 9175F is the PassMark find prime numbers test, where a score of 741 versus 526 yields a 40.9% delta. This result is remarkable because prime number finding is typically a pure integer workload that scales with clock speed and memory bandwidth, and the EPYC’s 5.00 GHz boost clock combined with its 576.0 GB/s twelve-channel memory bandwidth clearly overwhelms the Xeon’s 4.00 GHz and 409.6 GB/s eight-channel configuration.

The physics test shows a similar pattern, with the EPYC scoring 9,984 versus 7,209, a 38.5% delta. Physics engines often rely on single-threaded performance for collision detection and constraint solving, so the EPYC’s 26.8% lead in PassMark single thread (4,256 versus 3,356) explains much of this gap. The single-threaded advantage is the most consistent theme across the entire benchmark suite, as the EPYC wins every single-core test by at least 4.5% and as much as 26.8%.

On the Intel side, the floating-point math victory is the most decisive, with 162,862 versus 145,939 representing a 10.4% delta. This is interesting because the EPYC wins the multithread test by 7.5%, yet Intel’s FP math score is higher, which implies that the Xeon’s 24 cores are better utilized in FP-heavy parallel workloads. The encryption test shows Intel ahead by 6.4%, with 45,188 versus 42,297, and this is likely due to Intel’s dedicated cryptographic instructions that are more efficient than AMD’s implementation.

The random string sorting test is a statistical dead heat at 95,783 versus 95,736, a 0% delta. This suggests that memory bandwidth and cache hierarchy play a minimal role in this particular workload, or that both processors are equally limited by memory latency in sorting operations. The integer math test is closer than many others, with the EPYC ahead by only 2.6% at 219,800 versus 214,288, indicating that the Xeon’s extra cores can partially compensate for lower per-core integer performance.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9175F wins every single-core benchmark, with the PassMark single thread score showing a 26.8% advantage at 4,256 versus 3,356. The Cinebench R23 singlecore test also favors AMD at 7,895 versus 7,552, a 4.5% delta.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon 6520P win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the Xeon wins two out of seventeen head-to-head tests. It scores 45,188 in PassMark data encryption versus 42,297 for AMD, a 6.4% victory, and 162,862 in floating-point math versus 145,939, a 10.4% victory.

Q: How do the core counts differ, and does it matter?

A: The Intel Xeon 6520P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9175F has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the AMD processor wins the multithread benchmark 67,634 versus 62,936, a 7.5% lead, showing that core count alone does not determine performance.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 9175F has an average benchmark score of 95,615, while the Intel Xeon 6520P scores 93,786. This gives AMD a 1.9% advantage in the overall comparison.

Q: Which processor is better for physics simulations?

A: The AMD EPYC 9175F is significantly better, scoring 9,984 in the PassMark physics test versus 7,209 for Intel, a 38.5% advantage. This is likely due to the EPYC’s much higher single-threaded performance.

Q: Are these processors comparable in overall ranking?

A: Both processors sit at the 96th percentile against all CPUs, indicating they are both top-tier server chips. The AMD EPYC 9175F has a higher average score, but the Intel Xeon 6520P is within 1.9% in the overall average.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9175F uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process node manufactured by TSMC, with a codename of Turin and a transistor count of 133,040 million spread across 16 dies of 70.6 mm² each. The Intel Xeon 6520P uses the Granite Rapids architecture on Intel’s own 5 nm process, with a single large die of 598 mm². This fundamental difference in die strategy explains many of the performance characteristics, as AMD’s chiplet design allows for a massive 512 MB shared L3 cache, while Intel’s monolithic approach yields a 144 MB shared L3 cache.

The cache hierarchies differ substantially, with AMD providing 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, while Intel provides 112 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core. The larger per-core L2 cache on Intel may help with some workloads, but AMD’s 512 MB L3 cache is more than three times larger than Intel’s 144 MB, which gives AMD a significant advantage in data-heavy workloads that benefit from large caches. The memory systems also differ, with AMD using twelve-channel DDR5 for 576.0 GB/s bandwidth versus Intel’s eight-channel DDR5 for 409.6 GB/s, a 40% bandwidth advantage for AMD.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiator, with AMD offering Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only) versus Intel’s Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only). This makes the EPYC 9175F more suitable for systems with many high-speed expansion cards, NVMe drives, or GPU accelerators. Both processors support ECC memory and have no integrated graphics, which is expected for server/workstation parts. The release dates differ by over four months, with AMD launching on 2024-10-09 and Intel on 2025-02-23.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious difference: AMD EPYC 9175F has 16 cores and 32 threads, while Intel Xeon 6520P has 24 cores and 48 threads. Clock speeds also diverge sharply, with AMD’s base clock at 4.20 GHz and boost at 5.00 GHz, compared to Intel’s 2.40 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. The TDP reflects this, with AMD at 320 watts and Intel at 210 watts, a 110-watt gap that has significant implications for cooling and power delivery requirements.

The socket types are incompatible, with AMD using Socket SP5 and Intel using Socket 4710. The process nodes differ, with AMD on 4 nm TSMC and Intel on 5 nm Intel, which partially explains the clock speed advantage for AMD. Cache configurations are notably different, with AMD’s 512 MB shared L3 dwarfing Intel’s 144 MB, while Intel provides more L1 and L2 per core. Memory channels differ at twelve for AMD versus eight for Intel, and memory bandwidth differs at 576.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s. PCIe lanes also differ, with AMD offering 128 Gen 5 lanes versus Intel’s 88 Gen 5 lanes. The launch MSRP differs significantly, with AMD at $4256 and Intel at $1295, though this price difference is not reflected in the performance data, which shows AMD ahead in most tests.