AMD EPYC 9335 vs Intel Xeon w9-3595X Comparison

The Intel Xeon w9-3595X and AMD EPYC 9335 are both flagship-class server/workstation processors, but they approach the workload from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel part, with its 60 cores and 120 threads, is a raw multi-threaded powerhouse, while the AMD EPYC 9335, built on the Zen 5 architecture, counters with higher clock speeds and a more power-efficient design. Benchmark data shows the Intel Xeon w9-3595X winning every direct comparison in this head-to-head, yet the AMD EPYC 9335 remains a formidable contender when considering its lower power draw and higher base clocks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores, the Intel Xeon w9-3595X or the AMD EPYC 9335?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3595X has 60 cores and 120 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9335 has 32 cores and 64 threads. This gives the Intel part nearly double the core count.

Q: How does the single-thread performance compare between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3595X leads in single-threaded PassMark testing with a score of 3720, which is 36.2% higher than the AMD EPYC 9335's score of 2732. This is despite the AMD part having a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz compared to Intel's 2.00 GHz.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9335 offers significantly more memory bandwidth at 576.0 GB/s, utilizing a twelve-channel memory bus. The Intel Xeon w9-3595X provides 307.2 GB/s over an eight-channel bus, which is roughly half the AMD's bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher thermal design power (TDP)?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3595X has a TDP of 385 W, which is substantially higher than the AMD EPYC 9335's TDP of 210 W. This reflects the Intel part's higher core count and power consumption.

Q: What process node is each processor built on?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3595X is built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the AMD EPYC 9335 is manufactured on a more advanced 4 nm process by TSMC. This difference is a key factor in the AMD's higher efficiency.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for both CPUs?

A: Both the Intel Xeon w9-3595X and the AMD EPYC 9335 rank in the 99th percentile of all CPUs. This indicates that both are top-tier performers, but the Intel part has a higher average benchmark score of 209881 compared to the AMD's 194228.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between the Intel Xeon w9-3595X and the AMD EPYC 9335 is stark. The Intel part is based on the Sapphire Rapids codename, a 10 nm design from Intel's own foundry, featuring a die size of 4x 477 mm². In contrast, the AMD EPYC 9335 belongs to the EPYC 9005 series and uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. This process advantage is evident in the AMD's transistor count of 33,260 million across a much smaller die size of 4x 70.6 mm².

Cache hierarchies also differ significantly. Both processors have an L1 cache of 80 KB per core, but the Intel part offers 2 MB of L2 cache per core versus 1 MB per core on the AMD. The L3 cache is where the tables turn: the Intel Xeon w9-3595X has 112.5 MB of L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 9335 has 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD also has a higher peak memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s over a twelve-channel bus, versus the Intel's 307.2 GB/s over eight channels.

Feature-wise, both support DDR5 memory and ECC memory, and both lack integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon w9-3595X offers 112 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the AMD EPYC 9335 provides 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Intel part is multiplier-unlocked, a feature not available on the AMD chip. The Intel processor also has a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus the AMD's 4.40 GHz, though the AMD has a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz versus 2.00 GHz.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Xeon w9-3595X for users who prioritize raw multi-threaded throughput above all else. It wins all 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD EPYC 9335, with particularly dominant margins in physics (206.7% ahead), floating-point math (66.1% ahead), and prime number finding (70.6% ahead). Its 60 cores and 120 threads provide a massive advantage in heavily parallel workloads, making it the choice for compute-intensive tasks like rendering, scientific simulations, and data compression.

The AMD EPYC 9335, despite losing every benchmark in this comparison, should not be dismissed. Its 32 cores and 64 threads, combined with a 210 W TDP, offer a more power-efficient platform. The data shows it has a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz and significantly more memory bandwidth at 576.0 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound or where power consumption is a critical constraint, the AMD part could be the more pragmatic choice. The benchmark results show the Intel part has an average score 8.1% higher than the AMD, but the AMD's lower TDP and higher base clock suggest a different performance per watt profile.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for the two processors diverge on nearly every major point. The most obvious difference is core count: the Intel Xeon w9-3595X has 60 cores and 120 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9335 has 32 cores and 64 threads. This is reflected in their TDPs, with the Intel part rated at 385 W and the AMD at 210 W. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus the AMD's 4.40 GHz, but the AMD has a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz versus 2.00 GHz.

The memory subsystems are also distinct. The Intel Xeon w9-3595X uses an eight-channel memory bus with 307.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD EPYC 9335 uses a twelve-channel bus with 576.0 GB/s. The L2 cache differs, with Intel providing 2 MB per core and AMD providing 1 MB per core. The L3 cache is larger on the AMD, at 128 MB shared versus the Intel's 112.5 MB.

Process technology is a major differentiator. The Intel chip is fabricated on a 10 nm node by Intel, while the AMD chip uses a 4 nm node from TSMC. The AMD part has a transistor count of 33,260 million and a die size of 4x 70.6 mm², while the Intel part has a larger die size of 4x 477 mm². The Intel Xeon w9-3595X is multiplier-unlocked, a feature absent on the AMD EPYC 9335. PCIe lanes also differ, with the Intel offering 112 Gen 5 lanes and the AMD offering 128 Gen 5 lanes. The launch MSRP for the Intel is $5889, while the AMD is $3178.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unequivocal: the Intel Xeon w9-3595X outperforms the AMD EPYC 9335 in every single measured test. The most striking result is in the PassMark physics test, where the Intel scores 5842 versus the AMD's 1905, a delta of 206.7%. This massive margin suggests the Intel's architecture handles physics calculations with far greater efficiency.

In multi-threaded workloads, the Intel's core advantage is clear. The PassMark multithread score for the Intel is 99576, which is 51.3% higher than the AMD's 65811. Similarly, in data compression, the Intel scores 1831962 versus 1203096, a 52.3% lead. The floating-point math test shows the Intel at 379008, a 66.1% advantage over the AMD's 228123, and integer math is 36.7% higher at 473507 versus 346291.

Single-thread performance also favors the Intel, despite its lower base clock. The Intel scores 3720 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 36.2% higher than the AMD's 2732. This is consistent across both single-thread and singlethread entries. The Intel also leads in extended instructions (142785 versus 105706, a 35.1% delta), data encryption (92249 versus 63159, a 46.1% delta), and random string sorting (190745 versus 116608, a 63.6% delta). The only test where the AMD comes relatively close is the find prime numbers test, where the Intel still leads by 70.6% (580 versus 340), but this is still a decisive victory.