AMD EPYC 9275F vs Intel Xeon 6527P Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD EPYC 9275F compare to the Intel Xeon 6527P in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F has an average benchmark score of 133174, while the Intel Xeon 6527P records 115190. This places the AMD part roughly 15.6% higher overall, and the head-to-head data shows the AMD processor winning all 17 recorded benchmark comparisons.

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F leads in Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 10154 versus 8933 for the Intel Xeon 6527P, a 13.7% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the AMD part scores 3810 against 3539, a 7.7% lead.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 9275F and the Intel Xeon 6527P rank in the 97th percentile against all CPUs in the database. Despite that equal percentile, the AMD part holds a decisive lead in every direct comparison.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Xeon 6527P uses eight-channel DDR5 and delivers 409.6 GB/s, meaning the AMD processor offers roughly 40% more memory bandwidth on paper.

Q: Which processor provides more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon 6527P provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes (CPU only). The AMD part offers 40 additional lanes for expansion and I/O.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F has a launch MSRP of $3439, and the Intel Xeon 6527P has a launch MSRP of $2878.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9275F belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, built on Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, using 66,520 million transistors across a multi-chip design with 8x 70.6 mm² dies. The Intel Xeon 6527P is based on Granite Rapids architecture, part of the Xeon 6 generation (Granite Rapids-SP), manufactured on Intel's 5 nm process with a monolithic die size of 598 mm².

Both processors offer 24 cores and 48 threads, but the cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The AMD EPYC 9275F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with a large 256 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel Xeon 6527P has a larger per-core L1 at 112 KB and 2 MB of L2 per core, but its shared L3 is only 144 MB. The AMD part's 256 MB L3 is 112 MB larger, which can be decisive for workloads with large working sets.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The AMD EPYC 9275F runs at a 4.10 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Intel Xeon 6527P operates at a 3.00 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost. This 1.10 GHz base clock gap and 0.60 GHz boost gap contribute directly to the AMD part's single-thread advantage. The AMD processor carries a 320 W TDP, higher than the Intel part's 255 W TDP.

Memory and I/O architectures reinforce the separation. The AMD EPYC 9275F supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth and 128 Gen 5 PCIe lanes. The Intel Xeon 6527P supports eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth and 88 Gen 5 PCIe lanes. Both support ECC memory, and neither includes integrated graphics. The AMD part uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 4710. The AMD EPYC 9275F was released on 2024-10-09, and the Intel Xeon 6527P followed on 2025-02-23.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep: the AMD EPYC 9275F wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Xeon 6527P. The margins vary widely by workload, and the pattern is informative.

In Cinebench tests, the AMD part is consistently 13.7% ahead across all six variants. This includes Cinebench R15 multicore (7250 versus 6378), R15 singlecore (1023 versus 900), R20 multicore (30209 versus 26576), R20 singlecore (4264 versus 3751), R23 multicore (71927 versus 63278), and R23 singlecore (10154 versus 8933). The uniformity of this 13.7% delta across both single- and multi-threaded rendering suggests a broad architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The largest margin appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the AMD EPYC 9275F scores 991 against 508 for the Intel Xeon 6527P, a 95.1% advantage. This near-doubling indicates a massive lead in integer-heavy prime computation, likely reflecting the Zen 5 core's strength in this specific workload. PassMark physics shows a 50.4% gap, with 12089 versus 8037, another large win for the AMD part.

PassMark extended instructions shows the AMD EPYC 9275F at 94889 against 71600, a 32.5% lead. PassMark integer math follows at 317777 versus 268985, an 18.1% margin. PassMark data compression records 1212560 against 1030818, a 17.6% gap. PassMark multithread shows 84620 against 74445, a 13.7% lead. PassMark random string sorting records 144037 versus 131597, a 9.5% margin.

Smaller, but still clear, wins appear in PassMark single-thread (3810 versus 3539, 7.7% for both entries of the same test), PassMark data encryption (62664 versus 60333, 3.9%), and PassMark floating point math (201888 versus 195005, 3.5%). Even the narrowest margin, the 3.5% floating-point edge, still favors the AMD EPYC 9275F in every recorded data point.

The average benchmark score comparison reinforces the trend. The AMD EPYC 9275F averages 133174 and sits 2.5% ahead of Intel Xeon 6710E and 5% ahead of AMD EPYC 9354. The Intel Xeon 6527P averages 115190 and trails Intel Xeon 658X by 0.7%, AMD EPYC 9255 by 1%, and Intel Xeon w7-3565X by 2.6%, while leading AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9955 by 4.1%. The AMD EPYC 9275F's nearest rivals include Intel Xeon 6737P at 140694 (-5.3% relative to the AMD) and Intel Xeon 6730P at 124756 (6.7% relative to the AMD), placing it in a higher average band than the Intel Xeon 6527P's neighborhood.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the AMD EPYC 9275F and Intel Xeon 6527P are:

• Process node: 4 nm TSMC for AMD versus 5 nm Intel for Intel
• Transistors: 66,520 million for AMD versus null (not recorded) for Intel
• Die size: 8x 70.6 mm² for AMD versus 598 mm² Intel
• Base clock: 4.10 GHz AMD versus 3.00 GHz Intel
• Boost clock: 4.80 GHz AMD versus 4.20 GHz Intel
• TDP: 320 W AMD versus 255 W Intel
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core AMD versus 112 KB per core Intel
• L2 cache: 1 MB per core AMD versus 2 MB per core Intel
• L3 cache: 256 MB shared AMD versus 144 MB shared Intel
• Memory bus width: Twelve-channel AMD versus Eight-channel Intel
• Memory bandwidth: 576.0 GB/s AMD versus 409.6 GB/s Intel
• PCIe: Gen 5, 128 lanes AMD versus Gen 5, 88 lanes Intel
• Socket: AMD Socket SP5 AMD versus Intel Socket 4710 Intel
• Release date: 2024-10-09 AMD versus 2025-02-23 Intel
• Launch MSRP: $3439 AMD versus $2878 Intel
• Part number: 100-000001144 AMD versus SRVNY Intel

Shared specifications include 24 cores, 48 threads, DDR5 memory support, ECC memory support, no integrated graphics, Server/Workstation market segment, Active production status, and locked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9275F wins every single head-to-head benchmark against the Intel Xeon 6527P, 17 wins to 0 wins for the Intel part. For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the AMD EPYC 9275F is the clear pick, with a 13.7% lead across all six Cinebench tests and a 95.1% advantage in PassMark find prime numbers. Its 256 MB L3 cache and 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth further cements its position for memory-intensive server workloads.

The Intel Xeon 6527P, while trailing in every recorded metric, does offer a lower TDP at 255 W and a lower launch MSRP of $2878. Users with workloads dominated by floating point math see only a narrow 3.5% gap, which is the Intel part's closest margin, but it still loses that comparison. The Intel part's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches do not translate into any benchmark wins in the recorded data. The verdict for the Intel Xeon 6527P is straightforward: it is suitable for deployments where the AMD EPYC 9275F's higher TDP and higher launch MSRP are acceptable, but the data shows no workload category where the Intel processor emerges ahead.