AMD EPYC 9224 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 Comparison

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 and AMD EPYC 9224 are both server-class processors, but they come from different eras. The database records show a clear winner in the Cinebench suite: the AMD EPYC 9224 wins all six head-to-head tests, with margins of roughly 8% in multi-core and 7.9% in single-core. Both processors sit at the 66th percentile of all CPUs, yet the AMD part posts a higher average benchmark score of 11118 versus 10230 for the Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD EPYC 9224 scores 3874, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 scores 3564. That is an 8% deficit for the Intel. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 546 for the AMD versus 503 for the Intel, a 7.9% difference. Moving to Cinebench R20, the AMD again leads by 8% in multi-core (16144 vs 14854) and 7.9% in single-core (2278 vs 2097). The pattern holds in Cinebench R23: 38439 vs 35367 for multi-core (8% gap) and 5426 vs 4993 for single-core (8% gap).

The consistency of these margins is notable. Across all six tests, the AMD advantage never falls below 7.9% or exceeds 8%. This suggests a uniform performance lead rather than a workload-specific edge. The Intel's higher core count (28 vs 24) and higher boost clock (4.00 GHz vs 3.70 GHz) do not translate into wins. The AMD's newer architecture and larger L3 cache appear to compensate for its lower core count and clock speeds. The data shows that the AMD's architectural features, including a 5 nm process and 64 MB L3 cache, are sufficient to overcome the Intel's higher core count and clock speeds.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The AMD EPYC 9224 records an average score of 11118, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 sits at 10230. That is a difference of 888 points, or roughly 8.7% in favor of the AMD. Both processors share the same 66th percentile ranking, but the AMD's higher average places it further up the overall performance distribution. The nearest rivals for each part also reflect this gap: the Intel's closest competitor, the Xeon Gold 6312U, scores 10291 with a delta of -0.6%, while the AMD's nearest rival, the EPYC 7542, scores 11152 with a delta of -0.3%. The AMD part is thus positioned in a higher performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and foundries. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 is built on Intel's 14 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 9224 uses TSMC's 5 nm node. The AMD packs 26,280 million transistors across four 72 mm² dies, whereas the Intel has 8,000 million transistors on a single die (die size not recorded). The cache hierarchy differs in the L3: the Intel has 38.5 MB shared, the AMD has 64 MB shared. L1 and L2 are identical per core: 64 KB and 1 MB respectively.

Memory support is a major divergence. The Intel supports DDR4, while the AMD supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel's memory bus and bandwidth are not recorded. The AMD also brings PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel has no PCIe data. The sockets differ: Intel Socket 3647 versus AMD Socket SP5. The architectures are Cascade Lake for Intel and Zen 4 (Genoa) for AMD. Release dates are 2018-12-10 for Intel and 2022-11-09 for AMD. The TDPs are close: 205W for Intel, 200W for AMD.

The Intel part has higher base and boost clocks: 2.70 GHz and 4.00 GHz, respectively, versus 2.50 GHz and 3.70 GHz for the AMD. Despite these clock advantages, the AMD wins every benchmark. The transistor count difference is stark: 26,280 million versus 8,000 million, reflecting the more complex Zen 4 design. The AMD's four-die layout with 72 mm² per die contrasts with the Intel's single-die approach, though the Intel's die size is not recorded. These architectural differences explain the performance gap, even though the Intel has more cores and higher clocks.

Where Each One Wins

In the recorded Cinebench benchmarks, the AMD EPYC 9224 wins every test. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 does not lead in any of the six workloads. This includes both single-threaded and multi-threaded tests. The AMD's advantage is consistent, ranging from 7.9% to 8% across the board. The Intel's higher core count and clock speeds do not produce a win in any category. The AMD's larger L3 cache and newer memory subsystem likely contribute to its dominance, though the data alone cannot isolate the cause.

The use-case split is therefore one-sided in the measured workloads. For applications that rely on Cinebench-style rendering, the AMD EPYC 9224 is the clear choice. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280, despite its 28 cores and 56 threads, trails by a consistent margin. The AMD's 24 cores and 48 threads are enough to outperform the Intel in multi-threaded tasks, while its single-core performance also leads. The percentile ranking of 66 for both parts indicates they are in the same broad performance class, but the AMD's higher average score places it ahead in the overall database.

For server workloads that are not covered by these Cinebench tests, the data does not provide direct evidence. However, the consistent 8% lead in all six benchmarks suggests that the AMD's architectural efficiency is not limited to a specific test. The Intel's higher boost clock might benefit lightly threaded applications, but the single-core tests show the AMD still wins. The AMD's twelve-channel DDR5 memory and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, along with its 64 MB L3 cache, provide a strong foundation for memory-intensive tasks. The Intel's DDR4 support and smaller L3 cache are less capable in comparison.

Specification Differences

| Feature | Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 | AMD EPYC 9224 |

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

| Cores | 28 | 24 |

| Threads | 56 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 205 W | 200 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 3647 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Cascade Lake | Zen 4 (Genoa) |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | 26,280 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 4x 72 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 38.5 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Not recorded | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 460.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Not recorded | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Release Date | 2018-12-10 | 2022-11-09 |

| Production Status | Not recorded | Active |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $1825 |

The table highlights the key differences. The Intel has more cores and threads, higher clocks, and a higher TDP. The AMD counters with a smaller process node, more transistors, a larger L3 cache, and a more advanced memory and PCIe interface. The Intel's lack of recorded memory bus, bandwidth, and PCIe data means those fields are simply absent from the database. The AMD's launch MSRP of $1825 is the only price information available, and it is stated here once as required.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 has 28 cores, while the AMD EPYC 9224 has 24 cores.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 boosts to 4.00 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9224 boosts to 3.70 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 38.5 MB on the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280.

Q: Which processor supports DDR5 memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 supports DDR4.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 has an average benchmark score of 11118, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 scores 10230.

Q: Which processor is built on a smaller process node?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 uses a 5 nm process, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 uses a 14 nm process.