AMD EPYC 9654 vs Intel Xeon Phi 7210 Comparison

AMD EPYC 9654 vs Intel Xeon Phi 7210: a benchmark comparison that is less a contest and more a demonstration of generational separation. The EPYC 9654 dominates every single benchmark in the data set, winning all six head-to-head tests with deltas ranging from 1537.3% to 1543.2%. The Xeon Phi 7210, an older Knights Landing design, cannot compete on raw performance metrics, though its unique architecture still offers distinct capabilities in specific workloads. This analysis examines the data to determine where each processor stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 9654 wins all six head-to-head benchmark tests, and the margins are staggering. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 10248 against the Xeon Phi’s 625, a 1539.7% advantage. The single-core test tells an equally lopsided story: 1446 versus 88, a 1543.2% delta. These aren’t incremental improvements; they represent a complete performance tier separation.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The EPYC 9654 posts 42703 in multicore versus 2608 for the Xeon Phi, a 1537.4% gap. Single-core R20 shows 6028 against 367, a 1542.5% difference. The EPYC’s Zen 4 architecture delivers more than fifteen times the performance in every rendering workload measured.

Cinebench R23 results confirm the trend with the largest absolute scores. The EPYC 9654 reaches 101675 in multicore, while the Xeon Phi 7210 manages 6210 — a 1537.3% delta. In R23 single-core, 14354 versus 876 represents a 1538.6% advantage. The data is unambiguous: the AMD part is the decisive winner across all six benchmarks, with zero wins for the Intel Xeon Phi.

The average benchmark scores contextualize this further. The EPYC 9654 averages 29409 across its benchmarks, while the Xeon Phi averages 29245. Interestingly, the Xeon Phi’s nearest rival list includes the EPYC 9654 with a deltaPct of -0.6%, meaning the Xeon Phi trails the EPYC by only 0.6% in average score — but this is misleading because the Xeon Phi’s average includes PassMark tests that the EPYC does not share. In the six common Cinebench tests, the EPYC’s advantage is overwhelming.

The Verdict

The data delivers a clear verdict: the AMD EPYC 9654 is the superior processor for any workload measured by these benchmarks. It wins 100% of the head-to-head tests, with every delta exceeding 1537%. The Xeon Phi 7210’s 81st percentile ranking matches the EPYC’s 81st percentile, but this percentile reflects the full benchmark suite where the Xeon Phi’s PassMark scores bolster its average. In pure Cinebench performance, the EPYC is in a different league.

Choose the AMD EPYC 9654 if your priority is rendering, single-threaded responsiveness, or any workload represented by Cinebench R15, R20, or R23. The 96-core, 192-thread design with a 2.40 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost clock delivers 101675 in R23 multicore — a figure the Xeon Phi cannot approach. The EPYC’s 14,354 R23 single-core score also indicates far better per-thread efficiency, crucial for lightly threaded tasks.

The Intel Xeon Phi 7210, despite losing every head-to-head test, still occupies the same 81st percentile. This is due to its PassMark results, which include data compression at 332960, floating point math at 29356, and integer math at 84874. For workloads that leverage its 256 threads and Knights Landing architecture — particularly those that scale across massive thread counts — the Xeon Phi retains some utility. However, the data shows no scenario where it outperforms the EPYC in the measured Cinebench tests.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these processors is vast. The AMD EPYC 9654 uses Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 relies on the older Knights Landing architecture on Intel’s 14 nm node. The EPYC packs 78,840 million transistors across a 12x 72 mm² die configuration; the Xeon Phi contains just 8,000 million transistors. This transistor count disparity explains much of the performance gap.

Cache hierarchies differ fundamentally. The EPYC provides 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, plus 384 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon Phi offers only 32 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, with no L3 cache listed. The EPYC’s massive shared L3 cache is a significant advantage for data-intensive workloads, allowing far more data to reside on-chip.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The EPYC supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon Phi uses DDR4 with no memory bus or bandwidth specifications provided. Both support ECC memory, but the EPYC’s newer memory standard and higher bandwidth give it a clear edge in memory-bound tasks. The EPYC also features PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the Xeon Phi lists no PCIe specifications.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal how far apart these generations are. The EPYC 9654 offers 96 cores and 192 threads, while the Xeon Phi 7210 provides 64 cores and 256 threads. The Xeon Phi’s extra threads come from 4-way simultaneous multithreading, but the EPYC’s higher core count and superior per-core performance dominate in practice.

Clock speeds differ dramatically. The EPYC runs at 2.40 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The Xeon Phi operates at 1300.00 MHz base and 1500.00 MHz boost — barely over a third of the EPYC’s clock rate. This clock disadvantage, combined with the older architecture, explains the single-core benchmark results where the EPYC scores 1543.2% higher in R15.

Power draw and platform differ as well. The EPYC carries a 360 W TDP and uses AMD Socket SP5. The Xeon Phi draws 215 W and uses Intel Socket 3647. The EPYC’s higher TDP is acceptable given its performance advantage. The EPYC’s launch MSRP is $11805, while the Xeon Phi has no listed launch MSRP. The production status for the EPYC is marked Active, while the Xeon Phi’s status is not provided.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9654 wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 14354 against the Xeon Phi’s 876, a 1538.6% delta. The EPYC’s 3.70 GHz boost clock versus the Xeon Phi’s 1500.00 MHz boost clock is the primary factor.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon Phi 7210 have more threads than the AMD EPYC 9654?

A: Yes. The Xeon Phi provides 256 threads from 64 cores, while the EPYC provides 192 threads from 96 cores. Despite this thread advantage, the Xeon Phi loses every multicore benchmark, scoring 6210 in R23 multicore versus the EPYC’s 101675.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between these two CPUs?

A: The EPYC 9654 averages 29409, while the Xeon Phi 7210 averages 29245. The delta is only 0.6% in favor of the EPYC, but this includes PassMark tests unique to the Xeon Phi. In the six shared Cinebench tests, the EPYC’s advantage exceeds 1537% in every case.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The EPYC 9654 has 384 MB of shared L3 cache, plus 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core. The Xeon Phi 7210 has 32 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core but no L3 cache listed. The EPYC’s L3 cache is a decisive advantage for data-heavy workloads.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The EPYC 9654 uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 78,840 million transistors. The Xeon Phi 7210 uses Intel’s 14 nm process with 8,000 million transistors. The EPYC’s smaller node and nearly tenfold transistor count contribute to its massive performance lead.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 9654 and Intel Xeon Phi 7210 support ECC memory. However, the EPYC uses DDR5 with twelve-channel support and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon Phi uses DDR4 with no bandwidth specification provided.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9654 wins in every category measured by the shared benchmarks. Its 96 cores and 192 threads, combined with 2.40 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost clocks, deliver 101675 in Cinebench R23 multicore. The 384 MB L3 cache and DDR5 memory support make it ideal for rendering, simulation, and any workload that benefits from large on-chip data storage. The EPYC’s single-core dominance — 14354 in R23 single-core — also makes it suitable for database servers and latency-sensitive applications where per-thread performance matters more than raw thread count.

The Intel Xeon Phi 7210, despite losing all six head-to-head tests, shows strengths in specific PassMark workloads not shared with the EPYC. Its data compression score of 332960, floating point math of 29356, and integer math of 84874 suggest it can handle certain parallel compute tasks. The 256 threads provide massive parallelism for workloads explicitly designed for Knights Landing’s many-core philosophy. However, the data provides no evidence that the Xeon Phi outperforms the EPYC in any measured Cinebench workload — its wins are limited to PassMark categories where no EPYC comparison data exists. For practical purposes, the EPYC 9654 is the superior choice across every benchmark where both processors have recorded scores.