AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX vs Intel Xeon 6515P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two 16-core workstation processors. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Xeon 6515P takes 4. The most decisive AMD victories come in data encryption and integer math. The Threadripper scores 42524 in Passmark data encryption versus 30476 for the Xeon, a 39.5% advantage. In integer math, AMD posts 185168 against Intel's 147047, a 25.9% margin. These are not small gaps; they represent substantial throughput differences for encryption workloads and integer-heavy computation.

The single-threaded results also favor AMD consistently. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Threadripper scores 5906 versus 5442 for the Xeon, an 8.5% lead. The same 8.5% delta appears across every Cinebench single-core and multi-core test, including R15, R20, and R23. The Passmark single-thread test shows a larger 16.4% gap, with AMD at 3324 and Intel at 2855. Across the board, the Threadripper's higher clocks — 4.00 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost versus 2.30 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost — translate directly into faster single-thread execution.

Multi-threaded results follow the same pattern. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows AMD at 41837 versus Intel's 38547, an 8.5% win. Passmark multithread gives AMD 49220 against 45350, also 8.5% ahead. Data compression and random string sorting each show AMD winning by 16.6% and 8.5% respectively. The Threadripper's 64 MB of L3 cache and four-die design clearly help in these parallel workloads.

Intel's wins are concentrated in specific mathematical operations. The Xeon 6515P dominates Passmark extended instructions, scoring 53383 versus AMD's 46952, a 12% advantage. It is even stronger in prime number finding, posting 385 against 248, a 35.6% lead. Floating-point math also favors Intel, with 128954 versus 104377, a 19.1% margin. Physics simulation goes to Intel as well, 3829 versus 2913, a 23.9% win. These results suggest the Xeon's newer architecture handles certain AVX-512-style workloads and FP-heavy operations more efficiently, despite lower clock speeds.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX has an average benchmark score of 67868, while the Intel Xeon 6515P scores 67006. AMD sits at the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while Intel is at the 93rd.

Q: How do these processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: AMD scores 41837, which is 8.5% ahead of Intel's 38547. This delta is consistent across all Cinebench versions, from R15 through R23, for both single-core and multi-core tests.

Q: Where does the Intel Xeon 6515P beat the AMD chip?

A: Intel wins in four Passmark tests: extended instructions (53383 vs 46952, 12% ahead), find prime numbers (385 vs 248, 35.6% ahead), floating-point math (128954 vs 104377, 19.1% ahead), and physics (3829 vs 2913, 23.9% ahead).

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark advantage for either processor?

A: The largest margin belongs to AMD in data encryption, where it leads by 39.5% (42524 vs 30476). Intel's biggest win is in prime number finding at 35.6% (385 vs 248).

Q: Are these processors comparable in core count?

A: Yes, both have exactly 16 cores and 32 threads. They differ significantly in clock speeds, cache configuration, memory type, and PCIe generation, but the core and thread counts are identical.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Xeon 6515P?

A: The Intel Xeon 6515P has a launch MSRP of $740. No launch MSRP is listed for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX.

Architecture Differences

These two chips come from different generations and foundries. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX uses Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC, with the codename Chagall PRO. It belongs to the Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 3 Chagall) generation and packs 16,600 million transistors across four 81 mm² dies. The Intel Xeon 6515P uses Granite Rapids architecture on Intel's 5 nm process, from the Xeon 6 (Granite Rapids-SP) generation. Its transistor count and die size are not listed in the data.

Cache configurations differ substantially. AMD allocates 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, plus a 64 MB L3 cache. Intel gives each core 112 KB of L1 and 2 MB of L2, with a shared 72 MB L3. The larger per-core L2 on Intel helps explain its strong performance in FP-heavy workloads, while AMD's larger L3 supports its multi-core leads.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The Threadripper runs DDR4 across an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon runs DDR5 across an eight-channel bus, doubling bandwidth to 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 88 lanes.

The AMD part has a 280 W TDP and uses Socket WRX8. The Intel part draws 150 W TDP on Socket 4710. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD chip's release date is March 2022, while Intel's is February 2025. Both are currently listed as active production parts, and both target the server/workstation market segment.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most workstation builders: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX is the faster processor overall. It wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, has a higher average score (67868 vs 67006), and sits at a higher percentile (94 vs 93). Its advantages in encryption (39.5%), integer math (25.9%), and single-thread performance (16.4% in Passmark) make it the better pick for general-purpose compute, database work, compression, and any workload that relies on high clock speeds.

The Intel Xeon 6515P is not without merit. It wins decisively in floating-point math, prime number finding, extended instructions, and physics simulation. For users running scientific simulations, certain engineering applications, or AVX-512-heavy code, the Xeon's 19.1% FP math lead and 35.6% prime number advantage are meaningful. Its lower 150 W TDP also makes it easier to cool and power.

However, the overall benchmark picture favors AMD. The Threadripper's higher clocks and larger L3 cache produce consistent wins across Cinebench and Passmark multithread tests. The Xeon's wins are real but narrower in scope. If you need a do-everything workstation CPU, the AMD part is the safer bet. If your workload is specifically FP-intensive or relies on extended instruction sets, the Intel part deserves consideration.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX | Intel Xeon 6515P |

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

| Cores | 16 | 16 |

| Threads | 32 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 4.00 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 280 W | 150 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket WRX8 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Granite Rapids |

| Process Node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 5 nm (Intel) |

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

| L2 Cache | 512 KB per core | 2 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 72 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 409.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 lanes | Gen 5, 88 lanes |

| Release Date | 2022-03-07 | 2025-02-23 |

| Part Number | 100-000000447 | SRVU6 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX is the pick for general-purpose workstation compute. Its 8.5% lead across every Cinebench test means rendering, video encoding, and 3D modeling tools that rely on Cinebench-style workloads will see a consistent advantage. The 39.5% encryption win makes it the better choice for security applications, VPN gateways, database encryption, and any workload that moves encrypted data. Integer math at 25.9% ahead favors financial modeling, scientific computing with integer operations, and general software compilation.

The Threadripper's 16.4% single-thread advantage in Passmark also makes it better for lightly threaded applications, legacy software, and any environment where per-core performance matters more than core count. Data compression (16.6% ahead) and random string sorting (8.5% ahead) round out a profile that excels at data manipulation and throughput tasks.

The Intel Xeon 6515P is the specialist's choice. Its 35.6% lead in prime number finding points to strengths in number theory calculations, cryptography research, and certain mathematical algorithms. The 19.1% floating-point margin makes it better for computational fluid dynamics, finite element analysis, weather modeling, and other FP-heavy scientific workloads. Extended instructions at 12% ahead suggest better AVX-512 throughput for vectorized code. Physics simulation at 23.9% ahead favors game physics, particle systems, and molecular dynamics.

The Xeon also offers twice the memory bandwidth (409.6 GB/s vs 204.8 GB/s) and newer DDR5 support, which could matter for memory-bound workloads even if the benchmark data does not directly capture this. Its 150 W TDP versus 280 W means it fits into power-constrained environments more easily. For mixed workloads, AMD wins. For specialized FP or vector math, Intel wins. The choice depends entirely on what your compute mix looks like.