AMD EPYC 9255 vs Intel Xeon w7-2595X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9255 and Intel Xeon w7-2595X are both active server/workstation processors that sit in the 97th percentile of all CPUs, yet their benchmark profiles diverge sharply. The EPYC 9255 dominates the head-to-head with 13 wins against 4 for the Intel part, but the Xeon w7-2595X claims the single-thread crown and shows strength in floating-point and extended-instruction workloads. The data reveals a fundamental split between massive multi-core throughput and specialized single-thread responsiveness.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9255 posts an average benchmark score of 116,388, while the Intel Xeon w7-2595X scores 108,663. The EPYC sits 0.3% above the Intel Xeon 658X and 1.6% below the Intel Xeon w7-3565X, whereas the Xeon w7-2595X trails the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9955 by 1.8%.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench?

A: Across all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23), the AMD EPYC 9255 leads by a consistent 17.2% margin. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 64,318 versus 54,863 for the Intel part.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon w7-2595X win any single-threaded tests?

A: Yes, in PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests, the Xeon w7-2595X scores 3,723 against 3,655 for the EPYC 9255, a 1.8% advantage. However, the EPYC wins all Cinebench single-core tests by 17.2-17.3%.

Q: What is the most extreme performance difference in the head-to-head?

A: The PassMark physics test shows the largest gap, with the AMD EPYC 9255 scoring 9,740 versus 2,759 for the Intel Xeon w7-2595X — a 253% difference. The PassMark find prime numbers test also shows a massive 123.9% lead for AMD.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 9255 provides 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon w7-2595X offers 64 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). This gives the AMD part twice the expansion capacity.

Q: Are both processors from the same process node generation?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 9255 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Xeon w7-2595X uses a 10 nm process from Intel. The EPYC also reports 33,260 million transistors across four 70.6 mm² dies, while the Intel part has no transistor or die size data listed.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9255 and Intel Xeon w7-2595X represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The EPYC 9255 is built on the Zen 5 architecture (codename Turin) from the EPYC 9005 series, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 24 cores and 48 threads across four 70.6 mm² dies, totaling 33,260 million transistors. The Intel Xeon w7-2595X, in contrast, uses the Sapphire Rapids codename from the Xeon W generation, built on Intel's 10 nm process with 26 cores and 52 threads. This core-count advantage for Intel is offset by other architectural choices.

Cache allocation differs significantly. Both parts share 80 KB of L1 cache per core, but the EPYC 9255 provides 1 MB of L2 per core versus 2 MB per core for the Xeon w7-2595X. The L3 cache tells a different story: the AMD part has 128 MB shared L3, while the Intel part has just 48.75 MB total. This 79.25 MB difference in L3 capacity is substantial for workloads that benefit from large shared caches.

Memory architecture also diverges. The EPYC 9255 supports twelve-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, while the Xeon w7-2595X uses quad-channel DDR5 with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth — a 422.4 GB/s gap that heavily favors AMD for memory-intensive tasks. Both support ECC memory. The EPYC 9255's base clock is 3.25 GHz with a 4.80 GHz boost, while the Xeon w7-2595X runs at a 2.80 GHz base with the same 4.80 GHz boost. The multiplier is unlocked on the Intel part but locked on the AMD chip. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Intel uses Socket 4677.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9255 is the clear winner in multi-core throughput. It takes all three Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23) by 17.2%, and the PassMark multithread test by 18.5%. In integer-heavy workloads, the EPYC leads integer math by 17.2% and random string sorting by 26.4%. Data encryption shows a 19.9% lead, data compression a 3.6% edge, and find prime numbers a staggering 123.9% advantage. The physics test result — a 253% lead — suggests the EPYC's architecture handles simulation workloads exceptionally well.

The Intel Xeon w7-2595X wins in four specific areas. It edges out the EPYC in PassMark single-thread (3,723 vs 3,655, a 1.8% lead) and singlethread tests. More notably, it leads floating-point math by 9.6% (202,906 vs 183,367) and extended instructions by 3.1% (77,613 vs 75,185). This pattern suggests the Intel part has strengths in scientific computing and vectorized code, where floating-point operations dominate. The Xeon also has the advantage of an unlocked multiplier, which could allow for manual tuning.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9255 | Intel Xeon w7-2595X |

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

| Cores | 24 | 26 |

| Threads | 48 | 52 |

| Base clock | 3.25 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 200 W | 250 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 4677 |

| Process node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 33,260 million | Not listed |

| Die size | 4x 70.6 mm² | Not listed |

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

| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 48.75 MB |

| Memory bus | Twelve-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 lanes | Gen 5, 64 lanes |

| Multiplier | Locked | Unlocked |

| Launch MSRP | $2495 | $2039 |

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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows remarkable consistency. Across R15, R20, and R23, the AMD EPYC 9255 wins both multi-core and single-core by 17.2-17.3%. In R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 6,483 vs 5,530; in R20, 27,013 vs 23,042; in R23, 64,318 vs 54,863. The single-core margins are similar: 915 vs 780 in R15, 3,813 vs 3,252 in R20, and 9,080 vs 7,745 in R23. This uniformity suggests a consistent architectural advantage for AMD across rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite reveals a more nuanced picture. The EPYC 9255 dominates data encryption (59,668 vs 49,782, +19.9%), integer math (306,442 vs 261,384, +17.2%), multithread (76,580 vs 64,628, +18.5%), random string sorting (129,202 vs 102,230, +26.4%), and physics (9,740 vs 2,759, +253%). Data compression is closer, with the EPYC winning 1,018,904 vs 983,046 (+3.6%). Find prime numbers is lopsided: 580 vs 259, a 123.9% margin.

The Intel Xeon w7-2595X counters in floating-point math, scoring 202,906 vs 183,367 (+9.6%), and extended instructions, 77,613 vs 75,185 (+3.1%). It also takes both PassMark single-thread tests with 3,723 vs 3,655 (+1.8%). These wins, while fewer in number, indicate that the Intel part is not without merit in specific computational domains.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for multi-threaded server and workstation workloads: the AMD EPYC 9255. Its 17.2% lead across all Cinebench multi-core tests, coupled with a 253% advantage in physics and 123.9% in prime number finding, makes it the superior option for rendering, simulation, and encryption-heavy tasks. The 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 128 MB L3 cache provide a strong foundation for data-intensive applications. The EPYC also offers double the PCIe lanes (128 vs 64), which matters for systems with many GPUs or NVMe drives.

The Intel Xeon w7-2595X is the pick for single-thread responsiveness and floating-point math. Its 1.8% PassMark single-thread lead, 9.6% floating-point advantage, and 3.1% extended instructions edge could make it attractive for scientific computing or legacy single-threaded applications. The unlocked multiplier offers tuning flexibility that the locked EPYC lacks. However, its 250 W TDP versus 200 W for the EPYC, combined with lower memory bandwidth and smaller L3 cache, makes it harder to justify for general-purpose compute.

The launch MSRP difference — $2,495 for the EPYC versus $2,039 for the Xeon — is notable, but the benchmark results suggest the AMD part delivers substantially more multi-core performance per dollar spent. For buyers prioritizing raw throughput, the EPYC 9255 is the data-backed choice. For those with workloads dominated by floating-point math and single-threaded execution, the Xeon w7-2595X warrants consideration. The 97th percentile ranking for both CPUs confirms that either will outperform the vast majority of available processors.