AMD EPYC 9275F vs Intel Xeon w7-2595X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F records an average benchmark score of 133174, while the Intel Xeon w7-2595X averages 108663. The AMD part sits 2.5% above the Intel Xeon 6710E and 5% above the AMD EPYC 9354, whereas the Intel part trails the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9955 by 1.8%.

Q: How large is the multi-core Cinebench advantage for the AMD EPYC 9275F?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD EPYC 9275F scores 71927 against 54863 for the Intel Xeon w7-2595X, a 31.1% lead. The same 31.1% delta repeats across R15 multi-core (7250 vs 5530) and R20 multi-core (30209 vs 23042).

Q: Does the Intel Xeon w7-2595X win any benchmark in the comparison?

A: Yes, exactly one. In PassMark floating point math, the Intel part scores 202906 versus 201888 for the AMD part, a 0.5% edge. This is the only head-to-head win for Intel out of 17 recorded tests.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the AMD EPYC 9275F scores 3810 versus 3723 for the Intel Xeon w7-2595X, a 2.3% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is far larger: 10154 vs 7745, or 31.1% in favor of AMD.

Q: How do the two processors rank among all CPUs?

A: Both processors sit at the 97th percentile versus all CPUs in the database. Despite that equal percentile, the AMD part has a 22.5% higher average benchmark score than the Intel part.

Q: Which processor has the higher launch MSRP?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F has a launch MSRP of $3439, while the Intel Xeon w7-2595X has a launch MSRP of $2039. The database records no further pricing analysis.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9275F belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture with the Turin codename. It uses a 4 nm process from TSMC and packs 66,520 million transistors across a die configuration of 8x 70.6 mm². The Intel Xeon w7-2595X uses the Sapphire Rapids codename, a 10 nm Intel process. The database does not list transistor counts or die sizes for the Intel part.

Core counts differ despite both being workstation or server parts. The AMD processor provides 24 cores and 48 threads. The Intel processor provides 26 cores and 52 threads. Intel has two more cores and four more threads, yet the AMD part wins nearly every benchmark in the database.

Cache hierarchy differs substantially. Both parts share 80 KB of L1 per core. The AMD part has 1 MB of L2 per core and 256 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 2 MB of L2 per core and 48.75 MB of L3. The AMD chip has over five times the L3 capacity, which helps explain its large lead in cache-sensitive workloads.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD part has a base clock of 4.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and the same 4.80 GHz boost. The AMD part starts 1.30 GHz higher at base and matches the Intel boost ceiling. The Intel part is multiplier unlocked, while the AMD part is not.

Memory and I/O configurations diverge sharply. The AMD EPYC 9275F supports DDR5 over a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Xeon w7-2595X supports DDR5 over a quad-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes also differ: the AMD part provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the Intel part provides Gen 5 with 64 lanes. The AMD part has twice the lane count and 3.75 times the memory bandwidth.

Power envelopes move in the opposite direction. The AMD part has a TDP of 320 W, while the Intel part has a TDP of 250 W. The AMD part draws more power while delivering higher performance across most tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9275F dominates the head-to-head comparison, winning 16 of 17 recorded benchmarks. The largest single win comes in PassMark physics, where the AMD part scores 12089 against 2759 for Intel, a 338.2% advantage. This is the standout anomaly in the entire comparison. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 282.6% lead for AMD (991 vs 259). These two tests indicate extreme performance gaps in specific compute patterns.

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent 31.1% AMD advantage across all six tests. R15 multi-core: 7250 vs 5530. R15 single-core: 1023 vs 780. R20 multi-core: 30209 vs 23042. R20 single-core: 4264 vs 3252. R23 multi-core: 71927 vs 54863. R23 single-core: 10154 vs 7745. The uniformity of the 31.1% delta across both single and multi-core tests suggests a fundamental per-thread efficiency advantage rather than a scaling effect.

PassMark multithread confirms the pattern: 84620 vs 64628, a 30.9% AMD lead. PassMark random string sorting shows a 40.9% AMD lead (144037 vs 102230). PassMark data compression gives AMD a 23.3% lead (1212560 vs 983046). PassMark data encryption gives AMD a 25.9% lead (62664 vs 49782). PassMark extended instructions gives AMD a 22.3% lead (94889 vs 77613). PassMark integer math gives AMD a 21.6% lead (317777 vs 261384).

The single-thread PassMark test is the closest AMD win: 3810 vs 3723, a 2.3% margin. This contrasts sharply with the 31.1% Cinebench single-core margin. The PassMark floating point math test is the sole Intel win: 202906 vs 201888, a 0.5% edge. That is the only test where the Intel part outpaces the AMD part, and it is by a negligible margin.

Looking at rival context, the AMD EPYC 9275F sits 2.5% above the Intel Xeon 6710E in average score and 6.7% above the Intel Xeon 6730P. It trails the Intel Xeon 6737P by 5.3%. The Intel Xeon w7-2595X sits 2.1% above the AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX, 2.3% above the Intel Xeon w7-3555, and 2.7% above the Intel Xeon 6521P, while trailing the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9955 by 1.8%.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner: the AMD EPYC 9275F. It wins 16 of 17 benchmarks, often by wide margins. Its average benchmark score of 133174 is 22.5% higher than the Intel Xeon w7-2595X average of 108663. The AMD part leads by 31.1% across every Cinebench test, both single and multi-core. It leads by 30.9% in PassMark multithread. It leads by 40.9% in random string sorting. It leads by 338.2% in physics and 282.6% in prime number finding.

The Intel Xeon w7-2595X offers one narrow win: 0.5% in floating point math. That single result does not offset the broad AMD advantage elsewhere. The Intel part does have more cores (26 vs 24) and more threads (52 vs 48), but the benchmark data shows that core count does not translate into performance leadership in this matchup.

The AMD part also carries a lower percentile-relative position than its score would suggest. Both parts sit at the 97th percentile, but the AMD part achieves that with a much higher average score. The Intel part has a TDP of 250 W versus 320 W for AMD, which matters for power-constrained deployments. The Intel part is also multiplier unlocked, which enables overclocking. Neither of these factors changes the recorded benchmark outcomes.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the AMD EPYC 9275F is the choice. For users prioritizing lower power draw or overclocking flexibility, the Intel Xeon w7-2595X has qualitative advantages, though the database does not record overclocked benchmark results.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD EPYC 9275F | Intel Xeon w7-2595X |

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

| Cores | 24 | 26 |

| Threads | 48 | 52 |

| Base clock | 4.10 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 320 W | 250 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 4677 |

| Codename | Turin | Sapphire Rapids |

| Process node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 66,520 million | Not listed |

| Die size | 8x 70.6 mm² | Not listed |

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

| L3 cache | 256 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 (CPU only) | Gen 5, 64 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part number | 100-000001144 | SRN4C |

| Launch MSRP | $3439 | $2039 |

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

Both processors share 80 KB of L1 per core, DDR5 memory support, ECC memory support, no integrated graphics, the server/workstation market segment, active production status, and a 4.80 GHz boost clock.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9275F wins in nearly every measurable category. Multi-threaded rendering and compute workloads favor it heavily: Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 31.1% lead. General workstation throughput favors it: PassMark multithread shows a 30.9% lead. Memory-intensive operations favor it, consistent with its 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 153.6 GB/s for Intel. Data compression favors AMD by 23.3%, data encryption by 25.9%, and extended instructions by 22.3%. Integer math favors AMD by 21.6%. Random string sorting favors AMD by 40.9%. Physics simulation favors AMD by 338.2%, and prime number finding favors AMD by 282.6%. Even single-threaded workloads favor AMD, with a 2.3% PassMark single-thread lead and a 31.1% Cinebench R23 single-core lead.

The Intel Xeon w7-2595X wins exactly one recorded benchmark: floating point math, by 0.5%. That result indicates rough parity in pure floating point throughput, despite the AMD part winning integer math by 21.6%. The Intel part does offer qualitative advantages not captured in benchmark scores. It has a lower TDP of 250 W versus 320 W for AMD. It has a multiplier unlocked, meaning overclocking is possible. It also has a higher core count of 26 versus 24 and a higher thread count of 52 versus 48. However, the recorded data shows no benchmark where those additional cores produce a win.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. Users running floating point math workloads may find the Intel part competitive, given its 0.5% edge. Users running physics simulations, prime number sieving, string sorting, encryption, compression, or any Cinebench workload should select the AMD EPYC 9275F. The AMD part also suits systems needing higher memory bandwidth or more PCIe lanes, with 576.0 GB/s and 128 lanes versus 153.6 GB/s and 64 lanes. The Intel part suits power-conscious builds, with a 70 W TDP advantage, and overclocking-oriented builds, thanks to its unlocked multiplier.