AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P vs Intel Xeon 638 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Xeon 638 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The AMD chip offers 50% more cores and threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon 638 operates at a base clock of 3.20 GHz and boosts up to 4.80 GHz. The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P is significantly lower, with a base of 2.55 GHz and a boost of 3.00 GHz.

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

A: The Intel Xeon 638 is dramatically ahead in single-threaded workloads. In the PassMark single-thread test, it scores 3670 compared to the AMD's 2357, a 55.7% advantage.

Q: Which chip has an advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has a six-channel memory bus with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Intel Xeon 638 is quad-channel at 204.8 GB/s. The AMD part provides higher memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the production status and release timeframe for each?

A: Both are active in production. The Intel Xeon 638 has a release date of 2026-02-01, while the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P was released on 2023-09-17.

Q: Which chip has a higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 638 has an average benchmark score of 80723, compared to 76492 for the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P. Both sit in the 95th percentile among all CPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The Intel Xeon 638 is built on Granite Rapids architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at Intel's own foundry, with a die size of 598 mm². It belongs to the Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) generation and uses the Intel Socket 4710.

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P uses the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena, part of the EPYC 8004 series. It is also on a 5 nm process but fabricated by TSMC, with a much smaller die footprint of 2x 73 mm². The AMD chip integrates 17,750 million transistors.

Cache layouts differ notably. The Intel Xeon 638 provides 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 72 MB L3 cache. The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. The Intel part has larger per-core caches and a larger aggregate L3.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, but the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P uses a six-channel memory bus versus the quad-channel on the Intel Xeon 638. The AMD chip also offers more PCIe lanes: Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 5 with 80 lanes (CPU only) on the Intel. The AMD processor has a locked multiplier, while the Intel Xeon 638 is multiplier unlocked. The Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $899.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear overall winner, with the Intel Xeon 638 taking 14 of 17 benchmark comparisons. The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P wins only 3 tests.

The Intel Xeon 638 dominates in Cinebench tests across the board. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 4757 versus 4187 for the AMD, a 13.6% lead. The same 13.6% delta appears in R15 singlecore (671 vs 590), R20 multicore (19824 vs 17447), R20 singlecore (2798 vs 2462), R23 multicore (47202 vs 41542), and R23 singlecore (6663 vs 5864). These consistent deltas indicate a uniform performance advantage in both lightly threaded and heavily threaded rendering workloads.

The biggest win for the Intel chip comes in PassMark single-thread testing, where it scores 3670 versus 2357, a massive 55.7% advantage. This is the largest margin in any test. The Intel part also leads by 33.2% in find prime numbers (381 vs 286), by 22.6% in extended instructions (56498 vs 46091), and by 20.6% in floating point math (144757 vs 120066).

The Intel Xeon 638 also wins in multithreaded PassMark testing, scoring 55651 versus 48873, a 13.9% advantage. Physics tests show a 14.5% lead (4704 vs 4110). Data compression favors Intel at 725818 versus 681754, a 6.5% edge.

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P claims its victories in three specific areas. Data encryption is its largest win: 43619 versus 36030, a 17.4% advantage. Random string sorting goes to AMD at 85505 versus 74318, a 13.1% lead. Integer math also favors AMD, scoring 193256 versus 184884, a 4.3% edge.

These results indicate that the Intel Xeon 638 is broadly superior in most workloads, particularly those that respond to high clock speeds and strong single-core performance. The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P shows targeted strengths in encryption, sorting, and integer math, areas where its higher core count and memory bandwidth may help.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon 638 is the faster processor in the vast majority of tested workloads. It wins 14 of 17 comparisons and holds an average benchmark score of 80723 versus 76492 for the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, a difference of roughly 5.5%.

For buyers prioritizing raw compute performance, especially single-threaded responsiveness and rendering throughput, the Intel Xeon 638 is the clear choice. Its 55.7% single-thread advantage is decisive for many server and workstation applications that rely on per-core speed.

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P is not without merit. It offers more cores, more threads, higher memory bandwidth through six channels, and more PCIe lanes. It also wins in encryption, string sorting, and integer math. These are meaningful strengths for specific embedded and data-centric workloads.

Both processors occupy the 95th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are both high-end parts. The choice hinges on workload specifics: the Intel chip for general speed and single-thread dominance, the AMD chip for core count, memory bandwidth, and encryption-heavy tasks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon 638 | AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P |

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

| Cores | 16 | 24 |

| Threads | 32 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.55 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 160 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | AMD Socket SP6 |

| Architecture | Granite Rapids | Zen 4c |

| Codename | Granite Rapids | Siena |

| Generation | Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) | EPYC (Zen 4c (Siena)) |

| Process Node | 5 nm (Intel) | 5 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | Not specified | 17,750 million |

| Die Size | 598 mm² | 2x 73 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 112 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 Cache | 72 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Six-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 230.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 80 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 96 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Multiplier | Unlocked | Locked |

| Launch MSRP | $899 | Not specified |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 638 wins in scenarios that demand high clock speeds and strong per-core execution. Rendering workloads in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all favor Intel by roughly 13.6%, across both single-core and multi-core variants. PassMark tests for floating-point math, extended instructions, prime number finding, physics, and multithreaded performance all go to Intel. Data compression also favors the Intel chip. For database servers, workstation applications, and any workload that is latency-sensitive or lightly threaded, the Intel Xeon 638 is the superior choice.

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P wins in three specific areas: data encryption, random string sorting, and integer math. These are workloads that can exploit its 24 cores and 48 threads, as well as its higher memory bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s and six-channel memory bus. The AMD part also offers more PCIe lanes at 96 versus 80, which is advantageous for systems with many NVMe drives or accelerators. For embedded deployments focused on cryptography, sorting-heavy data pipelines, or integer-bound calculations, the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P holds the edge. Its lower TDP of 160 W versus 180 W also makes it the more power-conscious option for dense installations.