AMD EPYC 9634 vs Intel Xeon w9-3595X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9634 and Intel Xeon w9-3595X represent two distinct philosophies for high-core-count server and workstation computing. The data shows the AMD EPYC 9634 winning 12 of 16 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Xeon w9-3595X takes 4. The EPYC 9634 achieves a higher average benchmark score of 244,274 compared to the Xeon's 209,881, a difference of roughly 16%. However, the Intel part demonstrates a decisive advantage in single-threaded performance and specific floating-point workloads, making the choice highly dependent on the intended workload profile.

The Verdict

The benchmark results indicate that the AMD EPYC 9634 is the superior choice for heavily threaded, parallel workloads. Its performance in integer math, prime number finding, and physics simulations is nothing short of dominant. The EPYC 9634 scores 53.2% higher in PassMark integer math (725,356 vs 473,507) and 102.8% higher in find prime numbers (1,176 vs 580). For data center applications, scientific computing, and any task that scales with core count, the EPYC 9634's 84 cores and 168 threads provide a clear advantage over the Xeon's 60 cores and 120 threads.

The Intel Xeon w9-3595X is the better option for single-threaded and lightly threaded applications. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3,720 is 21.4% higher than the EPYC 9634's 2,924, and it wins in PassMark floating-point math (379,008 vs 353,784, a 6.7% advantage). This makes the Xeon w9-3595X more suitable for workloads like legacy software, certain database operations, or tasks that rely heavily on high clock speeds rather than core counts. The Xeon's 4.80 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC's 3.70 GHz boost clock directly supports this observation.

For a mixed workload environment, the EPYC 9634 remains the safer bet. Its wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core (91,752 vs 84,304) and PassMark multi-thread (107,944 vs 99,576) show it handles general parallel processing better. The Xeon w9-3595X is the pick only when single-thread speed is the absolute priority and the higher core count of the EPYC is not utilized. The data does not support the Xeon for any scenario involving data compression, encryption, or random string sorting, where the EPYC leads by margins of 22.1%, 64.7%, and 36.9% respectively.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different manufacturing and design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9634 uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 78,840 million transistors across 12 separate 72 mm² dies. The Intel Xeon w9-3595X uses the Sapphire Rapids architecture on a 10 nm Intel process, with a die size of 4x 477 mm². The EPYC's smaller process node and multi-die design allow for a significantly higher core count.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The EPYC 9634 offers 384 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon w9-3595X has 112.5 MB. Per-core cache also differs: the EPYC has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, while the Xeon has 80 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core. The Xeon's larger per-core caches may contribute to its single-thread advantage, but the EPYC's massive shared L3 cache is a major asset for multi-threaded data sharing.

Memory architecture is another key differentiator. The EPYC 9634 supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The Xeon w9-3595X uses eight-channel DDR5 with 307.2 GB/s bandwidth. This 50% bandwidth advantage for the EPYC is critical for memory-intensive workloads and likely contributes to its superior performance in data compression and encryption tests. Both support ECC memory. The EPYC offers 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the Xeon offers 112 lanes.

The sockets are incompatible: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4677. The Xeon w9-3595X has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, while the EPYC 9634 is locked. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, and the EPYC's integrated graphics field is null. The EPYC was released on 2022-11-09, while the Xeon is a newer part released on 2024-08-23.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9634 has 84 cores and 168 threads, while the Intel Xeon w9-3595X has 60 cores and 120 threads.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon w9-3595X beat the AMD EPYC 9634 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Xeon w9-3595X wins in four head-to-head benchmarks: PassMark extended instructions (142,785 vs 137,543, a 3.7% edge), PassMark floating-point math (379,008 vs 353,784, a 6.7% edge), and PassMark single-thread tests (3,720 vs 2,924, a 21.4% edge).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two CPUs?

A: The AMD EPYC 9634 has a twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon w9-3595X has an eight-channel bus with 307.2 GB/s.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon w9-3595X has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, which is significantly higher than the AMD EPYC 9634's boost clock of 3.70 GHz.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9634 has an average benchmark score of 244,274, placing it in the 99th percentile. The Intel Xeon w9-3595X has an average score of 209,881, also in the 99th percentile.

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 9634 faster in all Cinebench tests?

A: Yes, the EPYC 9634 wins all five Cinebench tests listed (R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core) with a consistent 8.8% margin over the Xeon w9-3595X.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9634 | Intel Xeon w9-3595X |

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

| Cores | 84 | 60 |

| Threads | 168 | 120 |

| Base Clock | 2.25 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 290 W | 385 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 4677 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Sapphire Rapids |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 78,840 million | N/A |

| Die Size | 12x 72 mm² | 4x 477 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 384 MB (shared) | 112.5 MB |

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

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

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 128 Lanes | Gen 5, 112 Lanes |

| Release Date | 2022-11-09 | 2024-08-23 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | 100-100000797 | SRN71 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the AMD EPYC 9634 scores 1,176 versus the Xeon's 580, a 102.8% advantage. This test is highly parallel and benefits from the EPYC's superior core count and cache. Similarly, PassMark physics shows a 110.4% win for the EPYC (12,291 vs 5,842). These results illustrate the EPYC's architectural strength in integer-heavy, parallel tasks.

In data encryption, the EPYC 9634 dominates with a score of 151,943 compared to 92,249 for the Xeon, a 64.7% margin. This is likely tied to the EPYC's higher memory bandwidth and larger L3 cache, which are critical for cryptographic workloads. Data compression also favors the EPYC, with a score of 2,236,412 versus 1,831,962, a 22.1% advantage.

Integer math is another clear victory for the EPYC 9634, scoring 725,356 versus 473,507, a 53.2% lead. Random string sorting goes to the EPYC as well, 261,134 versus 190,745, a 36.9% margin. All Cinebench tests, both single and multi-core, show the EPYC winning by a consistent 8.8%. This includes R23 multi-core (91,752 vs 84,304) and R23 single-core (12,953 vs the Xeon's score, which is not directly listed in the head-to-head but is implied by the 8.8% delta).

The Intel Xeon w9-3595X wins the PassMark single-thread tests decisively, scoring 3,720 against the EPYC's 2,924, a 21.4% advantage. This is the largest win for the Intel part and directly reflects its higher boost clock. The Xeon also wins floating-point math, scoring 379,008 versus 353,784, a 6.7% edge. In extended instructions, the Xeon scores 142,785 versus 137,543, a smaller 3.7% win. These wins show the Xeon's strength in workloads that rely on high clock speeds and per-core floating-point capability.

The overall scoreboard is lopsided: the EPYC 9634 wins 12 of 16 benchmarks, with wins ranging from 8.4% in multi-thread to over 100% in physics and prime numbers. The Xeon's 4 wins are concentrated in single-thread and floating-point tests. The data clearly shows that the EPYC 9634 is the superior multi-threaded processor, while the Xeon w9-3595X is the better choice for lightly threaded, high-clock-speed-dependent tasks.