AMD EPYC 9384X vs Intel Xeon w7-3555 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Xeon w7-3555 has 28 cores and 56 threads.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache capacity?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon w7-3555 has 75 MB of L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3555 boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9384X boosts to 3.90 GHz.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded PassMark performance?

A: The Intel Xeon w7-3555 scores 3549 in PassMark single-thread, which is 15% higher than the AMD EPYC 9384X's score of 3015.

Q: Which processor wins the majority of head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with the Intel Xeon w7-3555 winning 4.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Xeon w7-3555 uses a 10 nm process at Intel.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9384X and Intel Xeon w7-3555 represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD part belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, uses the Zen 4 architecture, and carries the Genoa-X codename. The Intel part is from the Xeon W family, built on the Sapphire Rapids codename. These architectural choices drive nearly every measurable difference in the benchmark data.

The most striking divergence is in cache hierarchy. The AMD EPYC 9384X ships with 768 MB of shared L3 cache, an enormous pool enabled by its Genoa-X design. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 has 75 MB of L3 cache, roughly one-tenth of the AMD figure. Per-core L1 and L2 allocations also differ: AMD provides 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, while Intel provides 80 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2 per core. The Intel per-core cache allocations are larger, but the AMD shared L3 advantage is overwhelming.

Process technology separates the two as well. The AMD EPYC 9384X is manufactured on a 5 nm node at TSMC, while the Intel Xeon w7-3555 uses a 10 nm node at Intel. The AMD chip integrates 90,160 million transistors across 8 dies, each 72 mm² in size. The Intel processor uses 4 dies, each 477 mm², and the database does not record a transistor count for it.

Memory architecture follows the core and cache split. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, but the AMD EPYC 9384X uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 uses an eight-channel bus with 307.2 GB/s. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with 112 lanes (CPU only). Both processors are socketed differently, with AMD on Socket SP5 and Intel on Socket 4677.

Clock speeds tell a contrasting story. The AMD EPYC 9384X has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 has a lower base clock of 2.70 GHz but a much higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Intel part compensates for fewer cores and lower base frequency with aggressive single-core boosting. Thermal design power is close: 320 W for AMD and 325 W for Intel.

Release timing differs by over a year. The AMD EPYC 9384X launched on 2023-06-12, while the Intel Xeon w7-3555 launched on 2024-08-23. Both are listed as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part has a recorded part number of SRN75, while the AMD part has none listed.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for most workloads. The AMD EPYC 9384X dominates the head-to-head benchmarks, winning 13 of 17 tests. Its advantages are particularly pronounced in cache-sensitive and multi-threaded workloads. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 wins in floating-point math, extended instructions, and single-threaded PassMark scores, making it a reasonable choice for scalar-heavy or lightly threaded tasks.

For server and workstation buyers prioritizing data compression, encryption, prime number finding, physics simulation, random string sorting, and integer math, the AMD EPYC 9384X is the better pick. Its 768 MB L3 cache and 32 cores provide a decisive edge in these areas. The Intel Xeon w7-3555 should be considered when single-thread performance matters most, as it holds a 15% lead in PassMark single-thread and a smaller edge in floating-point math.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the overall picture: the AMD EPYC 9384X posts an average benchmark score of 120427, while the Intel Xeon w7-3555 posts 106192. Both sit at the 97th percentile among all CPUs in the database, but the AMD part is roughly 13% ahead in average score. The nearest rivals for the AMD chip include the Intel Xeon w7-3565X at 1.8% behind and the AMD EPYC 9255 at 3.5% behind. The Intel Xeon w7-3555's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX at 0.2% behind and the Intel Xeon w7-2595X at 2.3% ahead.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9384X | Intel Xeon w7-3555 |

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

| Cores | 32 | 28 |

| Threads | 64 | 56 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.90 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 320 W | 325 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 4677 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Not recorded |

| Codename | Genoa-X | Sapphire Rapids |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 90,160 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 8x 72 mm² | 4x 477 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 Cache | 768 MB (shared) | 75 MB |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 307.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 112 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Not recorded | N/A |

| Release Date | 2023-06-12 | 2024-08-23 |

| Launch MSRP | $5529 | $2339 |

| Part Number | Not recorded | SRN75 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 9384X wins by exactly 2.8%. In Cinebench R15 multicore, AMD scores 5968 against Intel's 5804. In R15 single-core, AMD scores 842 against 819. The R20 tests follow: multi-core 24870 versus 24187, single-core 3510 versus 3414. R23 continues the trend with 59215 versus 57590 in multi-core and 8359 versus 8130 in single-core. The margin is narrow but uniform, suggesting a small but reliable architectural advantage in these rendering workloads.

PassMark results reveal where the two diverge sharply. The AMD EPYC 9384X wins data compression by 15.8%, scoring 1119983 against 966970. Data encryption is a landslide: AMD scores 72631 against 48007, a 51.3% advantage. Find prime numbers favors AMD by 49.7%, with scores of 596 against 398. Integer math goes to AMD by 21.7%, 297833 versus 244642. Random string sorting favors AMD by 24.3%, 119440 versus 96112. Physics is the largest single win for AMD, 9332 versus 5802, a 60.8% margin. Even PassMark multithread, which is close, goes to AMD at 69665 versus 67754, a 2.8% edge.

The Intel Xeon w7-3555 takes four wins. Floating-point math goes to Intel by 8.5%, 190917 versus 174630. Extended instructions favor Intel by 4.2%, 77619 versus 74363. PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread, which record the same value, both go to Intel at 3549 versus 3015, a 15% lead. These wins cluster around scalar performance and instruction-level throughput, while the AMD chip dominates in cache-heavy and parallel workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9384X is the clear winner in workloads that stress cache capacity, memory bandwidth, and parallel throughput. Data compression benefits from the 768 MB L3 cache, and the 51.3% encryption advantage suggests cryptographic workloads are a strong fit. Prime number finding, which often relies on fast memory and large caches, favors AMD by 49.7%. Physics simulation is the standout use case, with a 60.8% lead. Integer math and random string sorting also fall firmly in AMD territory, with margins of 21.7% and 24.3% respectively. The twelve-channel memory bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s, supports these results.

The Intel Xeon w7-3555 wins where single-thread speed and floating-point throughput matter most. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock drives the 15% single-thread PassMark lead. Floating-point math favors Intel by 8.5%, making it a better fit for scientific computing or financial modeling that relies on FP32 or FP64 operations. Extended instructions also go to Intel by 4.2%, which may benefit vectorized code that uses AVX-style instruction sets. The eight-channel memory bus and 307.2 GB/s bandwidth are lower than AMD's, but the higher boost clock compensates in latency-sensitive, lightly threaded scenarios.

The overall benchmark record shows 13 wins for AMD and 4 for Intel. The AMD EPYC 9384X also holds a higher average benchmark score, 120427 versus 106192. Buyers choosing between these two should weigh the magnitude of the AMD wins against the narrower Intel wins. The AMD margins in encryption, physics, prime numbers, and integer math are substantial, while the Intel advantages are concentrated in single-thread and floating-point work. For mixed server or workstation loads, the AMD EPYC 9384X is the more consistent performer across the recorded benchmark suite.