AMD EPYC 9224 vs Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9224 and Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 occupy different ends of the server processor spectrum. The EPYC is a modern 24-core Zen 4 part built on 5 nm, while the Xeon is a 4-core Skylake part from 2016. The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the two processors also differ fundamentally in power, memory, and feature set.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the memory support differences?

A: The EPYC 9224 supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon E3-1565L v5 supports DDR3 and DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 34.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 includes Iris Pro Graphics P580. The AMD EPYC 9224 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the production status of each?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 is active, while the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 is end-of-life.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 9224 has an average benchmark score of 11118, while the Xeon E3-1565L v5 scores 10320. Both sit at the 66th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The EPYC 9224 boosts to 3.70 GHz, while the Xeon E3-1565L v5 boosts to 3.50 GHz. Both have a base clock of 2.50 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different process nodes. The EPYC 9224 uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the Xeon E3-1565L v5 uses Intel's 14 nm process. This translates into a large transistor count gap: the EPYC packs 26,280 million transistors across four dies, each 72 mm², whereas the Xeon has 2,300 million transistors on a single 171 mm² die.

The core architecture also diverges sharply. The EPYC is based on Zen 4 (codename Genoa), while the Xeon uses Skylake (codename Skylake-H). The EPYC's cache hierarchy is far more generous: it has 1 MB of L2 per core and 64 MB of shared L3, compared to the Xeon's 256 KB of L2 per core and 8 MB of shared L3. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The EPYC uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and a peak bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, but the EPYC's memory subsystem is designed for high-throughput server workloads.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The EPYC provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC has no integrated graphics, whereas the Xeon includes Iris Pro Graphics P580. The sockets are incompatible: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, and the Xeon uses Intel BGA 1440.

Power characteristics are starkly different. The EPYC has a TDP of 200 W, while the Xeon has a TDP of 35 W. This reflects the EPYC's much larger core count and higher performance envelope. The EPYC was released on 2022-11-09, while the Xeon was released on 2016-05-30. The EPYC is still in active production, while the Xeon is end-of-life.

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity in raw performance. The EPYC 9224 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 517.3% to 520.5%. In every single-core and multi-core test, the EPYC's score is more than five times that of the Xeon. For any workload that depends on the measured Cinebench performance, the EPYC is the clear choice.

The Xeon E3-1565L v5 does have advantages in specific areas. Its 35 W TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC's 200 W, and it includes integrated graphics, which the EPYC lacks. However, its end-of-life status and far lower benchmark scores limit its appeal for modern server or workstation tasks. The EPYC's 24 cores, 48 threads, 64 MB L3, and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth make it a far more capable platform for compute-intensive applications.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The EPYC's average score is 11118, while the Xeon's is 10320. Both sit at the 66th percentile, but the EPYC's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-6700 (0.4% higher) and the AMD EPYC 7542 (0.3% lower), while the Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N (0.3% lower) and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 (0.9% higher). The EPYC is competitive with a broad range of server parts, while the Xeon is positioned among lower-scoring Xeon models.

For users who need maximum multi-threaded performance, the EPYC 9224 is the only rational choice. For those who prioritize low power consumption and integrated graphics, the Xeon may still be relevant, but its performance deficit and end-of-life status make it a niche option.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD EPYC 9224 | Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 |

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

| Cores | 24 | 4 |

| Threads | 48 | 8 |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 200 W | 35 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel BGA 1440 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Skylake |

| Codename | Genoa | Skylake-H |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 26,280 million | 2,300 million |

| Die Size | 4x 72 mm² | 171 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR3, DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 34.1 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Iris Pro Graphics P580 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2022-11-09 | 2016-05-30 |

| Launch MSRP | $1825 | $417 |

| Part Number | 100-100000939 | SR2R8 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 11118 | 10320 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are one-sided. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9224 scores 3874 against the Xeon's 627, a 517.9% lead. In R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 546 versus 88, a 520.5% lead. The pattern continues in Cinebench R20: multi-core 16144 versus 2614 (517.6% lead), single-core 2278 versus 369 (517.3% lead). In Cinebench R23, the EPYC scores 38439 in multi-core versus 6226 (517.4% lead) and 5426 in single-core versus 879 (517.3% lead).

These deltas are remarkably consistent, hovering around 517% to 520% across all six tests. The EPYC's advantage is not limited to multi-threaded workloads; its single-core performance is equally dominant. The Xeon's best result is its R23 multi-core score of 6226, which is still less than one-sixth of the EPYC's 38439.

The EPYC's wins are comprehensive. It wins all six recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with no wins for the Xeon. The data shows that the EPYC 9224 is in a different performance class entirely, making it the appropriate choice for any application that can leverage its core count and memory bandwidth. The Xeon E3-1565L v5, with its low TDP and integrated graphics, remains a legacy part that cannot compete on the metrics recorded here.