AMD EPYC 9184X vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 and the AMD EPYC 9184X. The AMD part wins 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel part takes 5. The margins, however, are not uniform. The EPYC’s wins are often decisive, while the Xeon’s wins are mostly narrow, with one notable exception.

Starting with the most lopsided result: the PassMark physics test. The EPYC 9184X scores 6674 against the Xeon’s 903, a delta of -86.5% for the Intel part. This is not a close contest; the EPYC is in a different performance class for this workload. Similarly, in the PassMark find prime numbers test, the EPYC scores 465 versus the Xeon’s 84, a delta of -81.9%. These two results alone show a massive gap in compute-heavy integer and physics workloads.

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story. Across all three versions (R15, R20, R23), for both single-core and multi-core, the EPYC 9184X wins by exactly -29.5% delta in every instance. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 40515 while the Xeon scores 28561. In single-core R23, it is 5719 versus 4032. The consistency of that 29.5% margin across all six Cinebench tests suggests a fundamental architectural advantage, not a workload-specific quirk.

The PassMark multithread test shows a 37.1% lead for the EPYC (47665 versus 29986). The single-thread test shows a 17.6% lead for the EPYC (2822 versus 2325). Data encryption is also a major EPYC win: 37376 versus 8798, a delta of -76.5%. This is a huge gap in encryption throughput.

However, the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 has its own victories. The most significant is in PassMark data compression, where it scores 728144 against the EPYC’s 614873, a delta of 18.4% in its favor. This is the Xeon’s biggest win and it is substantial. The Xeon also wins extended instructions (51191 versus 43562, a 17.5% lead) and floating point math (99432 versus 95476, a 4.1% lead). The integer math win is narrow: 160322 versus 157483, only a 1.8% lead. The random string sorting test is nearly a tie: 80208 versus 79913, a 0.4% lead for the Xeon.

Looking at the overall average benchmark scores, the Xeon Platinum 8270 sits at 71370, while the EPYC 9184X sits at 68202. Both processors hold the same 94th percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database. The nearest rivals for the Xeon include the Intel Xeon 6511P (avg score 71051, delta 0.4%), the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX (71797, delta -0.6%), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K (70879, delta 0.7%). For the EPYC, the nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 7352 (68118, delta 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX (67868, delta 0.5%), and the AMD EPYC 4484PX (67822, delta 0.6%). The average score delta between the two reviewed parts is small, but the individual workload deltas are not.

The Verdict

The data points to two very different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9184X is the clear winner for raw compute throughput, especially in multi-threaded, physics-based, and encryption workloads. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 wins in data compression and some math-heavy tasks, but its victories are often by small margins (1.8%, 4.1%, 0.4%) or a single large one (18.4%). The EPYC’s wins include several that are massive: 76.5%, 81.9%, 86.5%, 37.1%, and the consistent 29.5% across all Cinebench tests.

The verdict is straightforward: if the workload is dominated by rendering, physics simulation, prime number calculation, or encryption, the EPYC 9184X is the superior choice based on the recorded scores. The 29.5% lead across the entire Cinebench suite is decisive. If the workload is dominated by data compression or extended instruction processing, the Xeon Platinum 8270 holds the advantage.

The EPYC also has a significant single-thread advantage (17.6%), which affects responsiveness and lightly-threaded applications. The Xeon’s single-thread scores are lower across the board. The Xeon does have a higher core count (26 versus 16) and more threads (52 versus 32), but the EPYC’s per-core efficiency is so much higher that it overcomes the deficit in core count in most tests.

Notably, the EPYC 9184X carries a launch MSRP of $4928. The Xeon Platinum 8270 does not have a recorded launch MSRP in the database. Both are server/workstation parts with ECC memory support, so that is not a differentiator.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is clean based on the benchmark wins.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 wins in:

• Data compression (18.4% lead): workloads involving large archive creation, database compression, or storage-related data reduction.
• Extended instructions (17.5% lead): tasks that leverage specialized CPU instruction sets, likely including certain cryptographic or multimedia operations.
• Floating point math (4.1% lead): scientific computing or simulation tasks that are heavily reliant on FPU throughput.
• Integer math (1.8% lead): general integer-heavy compute.
• Random string sorting (0.4% lead): this is essentially a statistical tie, but the Xeon edges it out.

The AMD EPYC 9184X wins in:

• All Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single and multi-core, all at 29.5% lead): 3D rendering and animation workloads.
• PassMark multithread (37.1% lead): heavily parallel workloads.
• PassMark single-thread (17.6% lead): lightly-threaded applications, general responsiveness.
• PassMark physics (86.5% lead): physics simulation in games or engineering software.
• PassMark find prime numbers (81.9% lead): pure integer calculation loops, often used in cryptography or number theory.
• PassMark data encryption (76.5% lead): encryption/decryption tasks, secure communication, VPN gateways.

The pattern is that the Xeon wins narrow math victories, while the EPYC wins broad and deep compute victories. For a server handling mixed workloads, the EPYC’s dominance in the most demanding tests (physics, encryption, rendering) makes it the more versatile performer. The Xeon is specifically good at compression and some niche instruction work.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 9184X scores 40515, which is 29.5% ahead of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270’s 28561.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes, the Xeon wins PassMark data compression with a score of 728144, which is 18.4% ahead of the EPYC’s 614873. It also wins extended instructions by 17.5% (51191 versus 43562).

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

A: The largest delta is in the PassMark physics test, where the EPYC scores 6674 against the Xeon’s 903, a difference of 86.5%. The find prime numbers test is close behind at 81.9% (465 versus 84).

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The EPYC 9184X leads by 17.6% in the PassMark single-thread test, scoring 2822 versus 2325. This advantage also appears in every Cinebench single-core test, where the EPYC leads by 29.5%.

Q: Which parts have more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 has 26 cores and 52 threads. The AMD EPYC 9184X has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the EPYC wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the two processors are nearly tied?

A: Yes, the PassMark random string sorting test is very close: the Xeon scores 80208 and the EPYC scores 79913, a 0.4% delta. The integer math test is also close, with the Xeon leading 160322 versus 157483 (1.8%).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras and designs. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 is built on the Cascade Lake architecture, specifically the Cascade Lake-SP variant. It uses a 14 nm process node manufactured by Intel. The die contains 8,000 million transistors. Its cache hierarchy consists of 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared L3 cache of 35.75 MB. The total L3 is not separately listed, but the shared figure is 35.75 MB.

The AMD EPYC 9184X belongs to the Zen 4 architecture, under the Genoa-X codename, and is part of the EPYC 9004 series. It is built on a 5 nm process node by TSMC. The transistor count is vastly higher at 90,160 million. The die size is listed as 8x 72 mm², indicating a chiplet-based design. The cache configuration is dramatically different: it has the same 64 KB L1 per core and 1 MB L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is 768 MB. This is a massive difference, over 20 times the Xeon’s L3 capacity.

Memory support also differs fundamentally. The Xeon uses DDR4 memory. The EPYC uses DDR5 memory and features a twelve-channel memory bus with a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The Xeon’s memory bus width and bandwidth are not listed in the database. The EPYC also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon’s PCIe specification is not provided.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 3647 for the Xeon, AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC. The EPYC is listed as having an active production status, while the Xeon’s production status is not recorded. The EPYC’s release date is 2023-06-12, while the Xeon’s is 2018-12-10. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors, based solely on the recorded data:

• Cores: Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 has 26 cores; AMD EPYC 9184X has 16 cores.
• Threads: Intel has 52; AMD has 32.
• Base Clock: Intel is 2.70 GHz; AMD is 3.55 GHz.
• Boost Clock: Intel is 4.00 GHz; AMD is 4.20 GHz.
• TDP: Intel is 205 W; AMD is 320 W.
• Socket: Intel Socket 3647 versus AMD Socket SP5.
• Architecture: Cascade Lake versus Zen 4.
• Codename: Cascade Lake-SP versus Genoa-X.
• Process Node: 14 nm versus 5 nm.
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC.
• Transistors: 8,000 million versus 90,160 million.
• Die Size: Not listed for Intel; 8x 72 mm² for AMD.
• L3 Cache: 35.75 MB shared for Intel; 768 MB shared for AMD.
• Memory Support: DDR4 for Intel; DDR5 for AMD.
• Memory Bus: Not listed for Intel; Twelve-channel for AMD.
• Memory Bandwidth: Not listed for Intel; 460.8 GB/s for AMD.
• PCIe: Not listed for Intel; Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) for AMD.
• Release Date: 2018-12-10 for Intel; 2023-06-12 for AMD.
• Launch MSRP: Not recorded for Intel; $4928 for AMD.
• Production Status: Not recorded for Intel; Active for AMD.
• Part Number: SRF96CD8069504195201 for Intel; not listed for AMD.