AMD EPYC 9384X vs Intel Xeon w9-3575X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a dominant performance profile for the Intel Xeon w9-3575X, which wins 14 of the 16 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The most striking victories come in compute-heavy workloads. In PassMark floating point math, the Intel part scores 273,398 against 174,630 for the AMD EPYC 9384X, a 56.6% advantage. Extended instructions show a similar gap, with the Intel processor at 109,843 versus 74,363, a 47.7% lead. These are not marginal differences; they indicate a substantial architectural edge in raw arithmetic throughput.

The Cinebench suite reinforces this pattern. Across R15, R20, and R23, the Intel Xeon w9-3575X consistently leads by 19.6% to 19.7% in both single-core and multi-core tests. For example, Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 70,837 for Intel against 59,215 for AMD, while the single-core result is 4,200 versus 3,510 in R20. This consistency across rendering workloads suggests the Intel processor's higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz, compared to 3.90 GHz for the AMD chip, is translating into real performance across threaded and single-threaded tasks alike.

The Intel processor also wins in memory-sensitive workloads. Data compression scores 1,219,584 versus 1,119,983, an 8.9% lead. Random string sorting shows a 12.8% advantage at 134,723 versus 119,440. Even integer math, the closest race on the board, goes to Intel by a hair: 298,224 versus 297,833, a 0.1% delta. The PassMark multithread score follows the broader trend, with Intel at 83,338 and AMD at 69,665, a 19.6% gap.

The AMD EPYC 9384X claims two wins, and both are worth examining. The first is PassMark physics, where AMD scores 9,332 against Intel's 6,836, a 26.7% advantage. This is the largest delta in either direction in the entire dataset. The second is data encryption, where AMD records 72,631 against Intel's 62,258, a 14.3% lead. These wins suggest that AMD's Zen 4 architecture holds specific strengths in physics simulation and cryptographic workloads, even as it trails in most other categories.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Xeon w9-3575X is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry, using the Sapphire Rapids codename. It packs 44 cores and 88 threads, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The AMD EPYC 9384X, by contrast, uses TSMC's 5 nm process with a Zen 4 architecture under the Genoa-X codename. It offers 32 cores and 64 threads, with a higher base clock of 3.10 GHz but a lower boost clock of 3.90 GHz.

Cache configuration is where the two diverge most sharply. The Intel processor features 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 97.5 MB of L3 cache. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 768 MB of shared L3 cache. That L3 figure is nearly eight times larger than Intel's, and it is the defining feature of the Genoa-X lineup. The AMD chip also uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while Intel uses eight channels at 307.2 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory.

The die layouts tell a story of different manufacturing strategies. Intel uses a 4x 477 mm² design, while AMD uses 8x 72 mm² chiplets with 90,160 million transistors. The AMD approach is more modular, allowing for higher yields and more flexible configurations. The Intel design is monolithic per tile but still uses multiple dies. PCIe support also differs: AMD offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 112 lanes.

Other practical differences include the socket, with Intel on Socket 4677 and AMD on Socket SP5. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part is locked. The Intel processor was released on 2024-08-23 with a launch MSRP of $3789. The AMD EPYC 9384X was released on 2023-06-12 with a launch MSRP of $5529. The Intel part has a TDP of 340, while the AMD part is rated at 320.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3575X has 44 cores and 88 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9384X has 32 cores and 64 threads.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 97.5 MB on the Intel Xeon w9-3575X.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3575X scores 70,837, which is 19.6% higher than the AMD EPYC 9384X's 59,215.

Q: Are there any workloads where the AMD EPYC 9384X wins?

A: Yes, the AMD part wins in PassMark physics (9,332 versus 6,836, a 26.7% lead) and PassMark data encryption (72,631 versus 62,258, a 14.3% lead).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X supports twelve-channel memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon w9-3575X uses eight channels at 307.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3575X boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9384X boosts to 3.90 GHz.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. Core count is the most obvious split: Intel offers 44 cores and 88 threads, while AMD offers 32 cores and 64 threads. Clock speeds also differ, with Intel at 2.20 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost, versus AMD at 3.10 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. The process node favors AMD, which uses 5 nm from TSMC, while Intel uses 10 nm from its own foundry. The AMD part lists 90,160 million transistors across 8x 72 mm² dies, while Intel uses 4x 477 mm² dies with no transistor count listed.

Cache hierarchies are markedly different. Intel provides 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 97.5 MB L3. AMD provides 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 768 MB shared L3. Memory channels favor AMD at twelve versus Intel's eight, and memory bandwidth follows at 460.8 GB/s versus 307.2 GB/s. PCIe lanes also favor AMD at 128 versus Intel's 112, both Gen 5.

The platform specifications diverge as well. Intel uses Socket 4677, while AMD uses Socket SP5. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier; the AMD part is locked. The Intel processor has a part number (SRN72), while the AMD processor has none listed. The launch MSRP is $3789 for Intel and $5529 for AMD. The production status is Active for both. The Intel part does not list integrated graphics, and the AMD part has a null value for that field.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear overall winner for general and compute-heavy workloads. The Intel Xeon w9-3575X wins 14 of 16 benchmarks, with leads ranging from 0.1% in integer math to 56.6% in floating point math. Its Cinebench results are consistent across versions, with a 19.6% multi-core advantage in R15, R20, and R23. The single-core advantage is nearly identical at 19.7%. For rendering, scientific computation, and most PassMark workloads, the Intel part is the stronger choice.

The AMD EPYC 9384X is not without merit. Its 26.7% win in physics and 14.3% win in encryption show that specific workloads favor its architecture. The massive 768 MB L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s are notable features, even if they do not translate into benchmark victories in most tested categories. The AMD part also has a higher base clock of 3.10 GHz, which may benefit certain latency-sensitive tasks.

The average benchmark scores reflect the overall gap. The Intel part has an average benchmark score of 144,323, while the AMD part sits at 120,427. The Intel processor also ranks in the 98th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 97th percentile for AMD. The nearest rivals for the Intel part include the AMD EPYC 7643P at 144,824 (0.3% higher) and the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9965X3D at 143,735 (0.4% lower). The AMD EPYC 9384X's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w7-3565X at 118,307 (1.8% higher) and the AMD EPYC 7642 at 124,006 (2.9% lower). The Intel part sits near the top of its peer group, while the AMD part sits slightly below several competitors in its own class.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon w9-3575X is the pick for most compute-heavy tasks. Its floating point math score is 56.6% higher, and its extended instructions score is 47.7% higher. These are the kinds of workloads found in scientific simulation, financial modeling, and complex data analysis. The Cinebench results, with a 19.6% multi-core advantage across all three versions, make it the natural choice for 3D rendering and video encoding. The single-core advantage of 19.7% also makes it better suited for lightly threaded applications that depend on high boost clocks, where its 4.80 GHz ceiling outperforms the AMD part's 3.90 GHz.

The AMD EPYC 9384X is the better option in two specific areas. Physics workloads, as measured by PassMark physics, show a 26.7% advantage for AMD. This could be relevant for simulation engines and certain game-physics calculations. Data encryption also favors AMD by 14.3%, which matters for secure communications, VPN gateways, and any workload that relies heavily on cryptographic operations. The AMD part's twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while not reflected in a benchmark win, may still benefit memory-bound workloads that are not captured in the current test suite. Its 768 MB L3 cache is a unique asset, potentially useful for very large working sets that fit within that cache.

For the vast majority of benchmarked workloads, the Intel Xeon w9-3575X is the stronger processor. Its 14 wins against 2 for AMD, combined with the largest deltas in floating point and extended instructions, make it the default recommendation for general purpose and compute-focused server or workstation builds. The AMD EPYC 9384X should be considered only when physics simulation, encryption throughput, or the specific advantages of a very large L3 cache are the primary requirements.