AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P vs Intel Xeon 6724P Comparison

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P and Intel Xeon 6724P land in nearly the same overall neighborhood, with average benchmark scores of 76492 and 72396 respectively, but the recorded data shows they get there in very different ways. The EPYC relies on more cores running at lower clocks on a lean TDP, while the Xeon uses fewer, much faster cores with a wider memory subsystem. Intel takes 13 of the 17 head-to-head tests, yet AMD's four wins are concentrated in memory-heavy integer workloads, and that split tells the real story of which chip fits which deployment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon 6724P sweeps every Cinebench test in the database, and by a consistent margin. It posts 4399 versus 4187 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 18330 versus 17447 in R20 multi-core, and 43643 versus 41542 in R23 multi-core, all a 4.8 percent gap in Intel's favor. The single-core results show the same 4.8 percent spread: 620 to 590 in R15, 2587 to 2462 in R20, and 6161 to 5864 in R23. The consistency is striking, the Xeon simply carries a per-core clock advantage that holds across the entire render suite.

Intel's most dominant result is PassMark single-thread, where the Xeon scores 3279 against 2357 for the EPYC, a 28.1 percent lead. That is the single largest gap in the dataset and it matters for any workload bound to one thread. PassMark physics goes to Intel by 17.9 percent (5004 versus 4110), find-prime-numbers by 23.1 percent (372 versus 286), extended instructions by 14.8 percent (54101 versus 46091), floating point math by 11.3 percent (135404 versus 120066), and the overall PassMark multithread score by 4.8 percent (51345 versus 48873).

The EPYC's four wins are not flukes. Encryption favors it heavily: 43619 versus 34332, a 27.1 percent lead. Random string sorting goes AMD's way by 24.9 percent (85505 versus 68477), integer math by 12.2 percent (193256 versus 172216), and data compression by 8.7 percent (681754 versus 627185). Notice the pattern: every AMD win is an integer or memory-bandwidth-adjacent test, and every decisive Intel win is a clock-speed or physics test. Data compression, encryption, string sorting, and integer math are exactly the workloads that benefit from the EPYC's six-channel DDR5 subsystem and higher core count.

The aggregate picture is close. The EPYC's 76492 average places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Xeon's 72396 sits in the 94th percentile. Among its nearest rivals, the EPYC scores dead even with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (76513) and within 0.4 percent of both the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX and Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX. The Xeon, in turn, sits 0.1 percent from the Intel Xeon 6517P and 1.4 percent from the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270. Both are upper-tier parts, neither is a runaway winner.

Architecture Differences

Both chips are built on 5 nm-class processes, but at different foundries and with very different philosophies. The EPYC Embedded 8224P is AMD's Zen 4c "Siena" design, fabricated by TSMC, packing 17,750 million transistors across two 73 mm² dies on Socket SP6. The Xeon 6724P is Intel's Granite Rapids (Granite Rapids-SP) on Socket 4710, also a 5 nm part, and Intel lists its launch MSRP as $3622.

Core topology is where they diverge. AMD gives you 24 cores and 48 threads at a 2.55 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. Intel gives you 16 cores and 32 threads at a 3.60 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The EPYC has half again as many cores, each running substantially slower; the Xeon has 50 percent higher boost clocks on 33 percent fewer cores. That tradeoff maps directly onto the benchmark splits above.

Cache favors Intel per core: 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core versus AMD's 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2, with 72 MB shared L3 versus 64 MB. But memory bandwidth belongs to AMD's platform design: the EPYC pairs its six-channel DDR5 bus with 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Xeon's eight-channel DDR5 bus delivers 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC, both offer PCIe Gen 5, with AMD providing 96 CPU lanes to Intel's 88. Neither has integrated graphics and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Power is a defining difference. The EPYC is rated at 160 W TDP against 210 W for the Xeon, meaning AMD delivers its competitive aggregate performance from a lower power envelope. The EPYC launched in September 2023 and the Xeon in February 2025, so the Xeon is the newer design, which shows in its clock and cache figures. Both remain in active production.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: The Xeon 6724P wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests and leads the PassMark multithread score 51345 to 48873, a 4.8 percent edge. However, the EPYC's average benchmark score of 76492 is higher than the Xeon's 72396, so the aggregate picture depends on which tests matter for the workload.

Q: Which one is better for single-threaded applications?

A: The Xeon, decisively. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3279 beats the EPYC's 2357 by 28.1 percent, and it also wins every Cinebench single-core test by 4.8 percent.

Q: Which is better for encryption or compression workloads?

A: The EPYC. It leads PassMark encryption 43619 to 34332 (27.1 percent), string sorting 85505 to 68477 (24.9 percent), integer math 193256 to 172216 (12.2 percent), and compression 681754 to 627185 (8.7 percent).

Q: How do their core counts and clocks compare?

A: The EPYC has 24 cores and 48 threads running at 2.55 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The Xeon has 16 cores and 32 threads at 3.60 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost.

Q: Which has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon, at 409.6 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR5 bus, versus 230.4 GB/s over six channels for the EPYC.

Q: Which draws less power?

A: The EPYC, rated at 160 W TDP versus 210 W for the Xeon.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P | Intel Xeon 6724P |

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

| Cores / Threads | 24 / 48 | 16 / 32 |

| Base Clock | 2.55 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 160 W | 210 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP6 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| Architecture | Zen 4c (Siena) | Granite Rapids (Granite Rapids-SP) |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 17,750 million | not listed |

| Die Size | 2x 73 mm² | not listed |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 64 MB shared | 72 MB shared |

| Memory Bus | Six-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 230.4 GB/s | 409.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 96 lanes | Gen 5, 88 lanes |

| Release Date | 2023 | 2025 |

| Launch MSRP | not listed | $3622 |

Both share a 5 nm process node, DDR5 support with ECC, Server/Workstation segmentation, active production status, locked multipliers, and no integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. Choose the Xeon 6724P when per-core speed drives the workload: its 28.1 percent single-thread lead, its sweep of all six Cinebench tests, and its wins in floating point math, extended instructions, physics, and prime finding make it the pick for lightly threaded server tasks, simulation, and any application that cannot scale past a handful of threads. Its 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth also suits bandwidth-hungry deployments despite AMD's lane advantage.

Choose the EPYC Embedded 8224P when the workload is parallel, integer-heavy, or power constrained. Its 24 cores win in encryption, compression, string sorting, and integer math, and its 160 W TDP versus 210 W means it delivers near-parity aggregate performance from a meaningfully lower power envelope. In the database rankings the two are separated by a single percentile point, so neither embarrasses the other; the decision hinges on which benchmark suite resembles the target workload, and on whether power draw or clock speed is the binding constraint.

Where Each One Wins

EPYC Embedded 8224P territory: encryption services (27.1 percent lead), text and log processing via string sorting (24.9 percent), integer-heavy computation (12.2 percent), data compression pipelines (8.7 percent), dense multi-core consolidation where 48 threads at 160 W matter, and platforms wanting the larger 96-lane PCIe Gen 5 allocation.

Xeon 6724P territory: single-threaded and latency-sensitive services (28.1 percent single-thread lead), rendering and content creation (all Cinebench tests, 4.8 percent), physics simulation (17.9 percent), floating point workloads (11.3 percent), vectorized or extended-instruction code paths (14.8 percent), prime-search-style integer throughput (23.1 percent), and applications that can exploit 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth across eight DDR5 channels.