AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P vs Intel Xeon w5-3535X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of two very different processors. The Intel Xeon w5-3535X and AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P trade blows across the test suite, but the Intel part wins the majority of rounds. Out of 17 head-to-head tests, the Xeon w5-3535X takes 12 wins, while the EPYC Embedded 8224P secures 5. The overall average benchmark score for the Intel chip is 81115, which places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD chip averages 76492, good for the 95th percentile.

The most lopsided victory belongs to the Intel Xeon w5-3535X in the PassMark single-thread test. It scores 3602 against the AMD chip's 2357, a massive 52.8% delta. This is the single largest gap in the entire comparison. The data shows that the Intel core architecture has a substantial raw per-thread performance advantage, which is consistent with its boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 3.00 GHz for the AMD part.

Intel also dominates the Cinebench suite with near-uniform margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 4634 versus 4187 for the EPYC, a 10.7% edge. The single-core R15 result is 654 versus 590, also a 10.8% difference. Moving to R20, Intel leads 19309 to 17447 in multi-core and 2725 to 2462 in single-core, both at 10.7% deltas. The R23 results follow the same pattern: 45974 versus 41542 in multi-core, and 6490 versus 5864 in single-core, again 10.7% apart. The consistency of these margins across all three Cinebench generations suggests a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The extended instructions test is another Intel stronghold. The Xeon w5-3535X scores 60183, while the EPYC Embedded 8224P manages only 46091. That is a 30.6% lead for Intel. Floating-point math also favors Intel, with 145924 against 120066, a 21.5% difference. Data compression goes to Intel as well, 731388 versus 681754, a 7.3% edge. The multi-thread PassMark score follows the trend: 54088 for Intel versus 48873 for AMD, a 10.7% gap.

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P fights back in several specific workloads. The largest AMD win comes in data encryption, where it scores 43619 against Intel's 36784. That is a 15.7% advantage in AMD's favor. Random string sorting also goes to AMD, 85505 versus 73618, a 13.9% delta. Physics simulation favors AMD too, with 4110 against 3547, a 13.7% lead. Prime number finding is closer, AMD winning 286 to 269, a modest 5.9% edge. Integer math goes to AMD by a slim margin: 193256 versus 186158, a 3.7% difference.

These results show that the EPYC Embedded 8224P has specific strengths in security-related operations, sorting algorithms, and physics workloads. The Intel part is broadly faster across rendering, floating-point, and single-threaded tasks. The average benchmark scores reflect this: 81115 for Intel versus 76492 for AMD, a difference of about 6% in overall performance. Notably, the Intel Xeon's nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Core i9-14900KS at 81127, the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX at 81103, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 at 80762, and the Intel Xeon 638 at 80723. The AMD EPYC's closest competitors include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX at 76513, the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX at 76212, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX at 76155, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D at 75779.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon w5-3535X is the faster processor for most workloads. Its 10.7% lead across all three Cinebench multi-core tests and its 52.8% single-thread advantage make it the clear choice for rendering, simulation, and general productivity tasks. The 30.6% edge in extended instructions and 21.5% lead in floating-point math further reinforce its position for scientific and engineering applications.

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P is not without merit. Its 15.7% win in data encryption makes it attractive for security-sensitive deployments. The 13.9% advantage in random string sorting and 13.7% lead in physics suggest it handles certain algorithmic workloads more efficiently. The 24 cores and 48 threads also provide a thread count advantage over Intel's 20 cores and 40 threads, which may matter in heavily parallelized scenarios.

However, the overall average benchmark score tells the story: 81115 for Intel versus 76492 for AMD. The Intel part sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while AMD sits one point lower at 95th. For buyers who need maximum throughput across a broad range of tasks, the Intel Xeon w5-3535X is the better pick. Those who prioritize encryption performance or specific sorting and physics workloads should consider the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P. The AMD chip also offers a lower power envelope at 160 W TDP versus Intel's 300 W, though the benchmark data does not quantify the performance-per-watt tradeoff.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Xeon w5-3535X. It scores 3602 in PassMark single-thread, which is 52.8% higher than the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P's 2357.

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

A: The Intel Xeon w5-3535X scores 45974, while the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P scores 41542. Intel leads by 10.7%.

Q: In which tests does the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P win?

A: The AMD chip wins in data encryption, find prime numbers, integer math, physics, and random string sorting. Its largest win is 15.7% in data encryption.

Q: What is the overall average benchmark score difference?

A: The Intel Xeon w5-3535X averages 81115, while the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P averages 76492. Intel is ahead by roughly 6%.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Xeon w5-3535X has 20 cores and 40 threads. The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon w5-3535X boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P boosts to 3.00 GHz.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on several key specification fields. The Intel Xeon w5-3535X has 20 cores and 40 threads, while the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has 24 cores and 48 threads. Base clocks differ: Intel runs at 2.90 GHz, AMD at 2.55 GHz. Boost clocks are further apart, with Intel at 4.80 GHz and AMD at 3.00 GHz. Thermal design power is 300 W for Intel and 160 W for AMD.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 4677, while AMD uses Socket SP6. The memory bus is eight-channel for Intel and six-channel for AMD. Memory bandwidth is 307.2 GB/s for Intel and 230.4 GB/s for AMD. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. PCIe lanes differ: Intel provides Gen 5 with 112 lanes (CPU only), while AMD provides Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part is locked. The Intel chip was released on 2024-08-23 with a launch MSRP of $1689, while the AMD chip was released on 2023-09-17 with no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is significant. The Intel Xeon w5-3535X is built on Sapphire Rapids architecture, using a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry. The die size is listed as 4x 477 mm². The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P is based on Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena, using a 5 nm process at TSMC. The AMD chip has 17,750 million transistors and a die size of 2x 73 mm².

Cache layouts differ notably. Intel provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 52.5 MB of L3. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip has a larger per-core L2, while AMD has a larger total L3 pool.

The AMD chip is part of the EPYC 8004 series, while the Intel chip belongs to the Xeon W generation. The Intel part has part number SRN76, while the AMD part is numbered 100-000001418. Both are active production parts targeting the server and workstation market segment. Neither includes integrated graphics, though the AMD field is recorded as null rather than N/A. The process node difference between 10 nm (Intel) and 5 nm (TSMC) is notable, as is the transistor count advantage for AMD, which reflects the denser Zen 4c design optimized for embedded and edge deployments.